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.
Oppose For many reasons. A-the actual usage is much more in the camp of women judge. B-the parent category
Category:Women judges and
Category:Women judges by nationality use this form. C-Judges are adults, and women is the most respectful term for human adult females. D-Currently there is a discussion trending the other way for
Category:female diplomats, where all commentators to date have advocated the change. E-there have been multiple attempts where people have literally nominated every single category we have that is a subcategory of
Category:Women that uses either women or female and tried to either get them all moved to female, get them all moved to women, or make them all uniform. I have to commend the dedication of those who have done that, because there are so many categories covered here. Probably over 1000 when the last nomination was tried, and even more now. Some may have even tried to see if
Category:Actresses and its sub-categories should be renamed to either
Category:Female actors or
Category:Women actors. However there has never been a successful consensus for mass renaming. Instead the closest to consensus we have gotten is that such categories should follow the lead of the closest and most relevant parents. So
Category:Women judges is the most obvious.
Category:Women lawyers is another. It was renamed in April 2014 from
Category:Female layers. On the French side, the ultimate parent is
Category:French women. Of its 22 direct categories, 17 use women, 1 uses females, 3 are duchesses, empresses and countesses. I just added
Category:French queens consorts. Then there is
Category:French beauty pageant winners, in which the whole contents are evidently women by default. Of the 32 sub-cats of
Category:French women by occupation, 24 use women in their names, 3 use females (dancers, models and musicians) and 5 use titles that are only applied to women (actreeses, coutesans, ladies-in-waiting, nuns and religious sisters, midwives). From academics, to lawyers, to psychiatrists, to writers, the term women is used. So the general trend seems to be that any position that requires specific training is going to be denoted with women. There is one sub-cat of
Category:French women scientists that does not follow this convention, I am going to look into fixing that.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose. There may be a valid case to be made that we should move all of ‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›Category:Women judges by nationality and its subcategories to "female" instead of "women" — but that would need to be proposed as a batch discussion on all of them rather than applying to this one alone. So I'd be willing to listen in good faith to a comprehensive proposal, but I can't support this in isolation: regardless of whether we settle on "women" or "female", this and its siblings need to be consistent with each other.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Governors of Kenya
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 in principal. I am not sure governor is the best term, but I am hesitant about ruler. My initial impression is that the colonial rulers would be
Elizabeth II, etc. Which is totally different than the governors, and I am less than convinced the vast extent of a multi-nationam colonial empire makes each subject area defining to the Emperor/Empress/what ever title they use. Is Woodrow Wilson to be defined as a colonial ruler of The Philippines? What of Hawaii? American Samoa? I don't think that is the course we want to go down. Maybe calling the category
Colonial administrators of Kenya would work. We need to keep in mind that we categorize by job, not be title. Thus for example
Category:French queens consort merges the wives of both kings and emperors. The main reason it only has the wives is because France has never had a ruling queen. Queens consort and Princes consort can generally be dplit on lots of grounds related to different perceived roles. On the other hand if a place had bounced between using the title king consort and prince consort we would put all in the same category without regard to title. It is true that change in title often does signify a different job, a president is never quite the same as a queen, even if we compare the president of Israel and Queen Elizabeth II, where both are virtually powerless heads of state.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment. The alternative suggestions all miss the point that the 15 people in this category all held the title of Governor/Governors-General of Kenya/ East Africa Protectorate. This is a well-populated category of top dogs, and I see no need for a rename which would broaden its scope. My proposed rename is to resolve ambiguity, not change scope.
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:Liberal democracies
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:delete, determining if a democracy really is a liberal democracy becomes too subjective. There is some discussion about this on the category talk page as well.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
15:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Strong Delete - This category is very subjective and it really depends on interpretation for what counts as a "liberal democracy" at times. Instead of using categories labelling dictatorship or democracy, we should stick to more neutral ones like "republic" or "monarchy". The Ninja5 Empire (
Talk)03:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Women's sport competitions at the Olympic Games
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep and create more like it. Most Olympic events are gendered as either men-only or women-only, though a small minority are mixed. Gender is therefore a
WP:DEFINING characteristic of Olympic events, so they should be categorised as such.
However, the parent categories use the "term events" (e.g.
Category:2018 Winter Olympics events) rather than the more verbose "sport competitions". So we should have 3 gender trees for Olympic events:
I am fine with closing the nomination. Regarding consensus, we have it, but only three of us participated in the debate. Since the modification of the categorization scheme will have large implications (affect hundreds/thousands of articles), maybe we need some more feedback from the community? But perhaps there is a better venue for that? +--Tone17:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Tone: the nom is free to withdraw a nomination which hasn't been supported. Up to you, but personally I think it's a pity to keep a discussion running when an editor has been at work on a topic. If the concerns are resolved, I reckon its better to close. But you are the nom, so your call. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
17:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Fooian bureaucrats
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: per
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. The vagueness of the term "bureaucrat" is why we have no wider
Category:Bureaucrats: it has too many meanings. Is it any office-worker? Any civil servant or govt official? Or just those with an officious attitude? Does it include bureaucracy in private companies, or is it limited to govt?
Distribute to other categories. I sampled the Pakistani category and it seemed to cover a wider variety of government officials than just civil servants, including those running nationalised industries, diplomats, and military or ex-military. A merger to civil servants would not do, and I cannot think of an appropriate rename.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Move to civil servant catrgories where appropriate. While bureaucrat is often used as a synonym of civil servant, private companies, large religious organizations and non-governmental organizations will also have people who at times will be called bureaucrats. I do not think it is useful to create a category to cover all sucjh people.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:WNBL templates
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose For many reasons. A-the actual usage is much more in the camp of women judge. B-the parent category
Category:Women judges and
Category:Women judges by nationality use this form. C-Judges are adults, and women is the most respectful term for human adult females. D-Currently there is a discussion trending the other way for
Category:female diplomats, where all commentators to date have advocated the change. E-there have been multiple attempts where people have literally nominated every single category we have that is a subcategory of
Category:Women that uses either women or female and tried to either get them all moved to female, get them all moved to women, or make them all uniform. I have to commend the dedication of those who have done that, because there are so many categories covered here. Probably over 1000 when the last nomination was tried, and even more now. Some may have even tried to see if
Category:Actresses and its sub-categories should be renamed to either
Category:Female actors or
Category:Women actors. However there has never been a successful consensus for mass renaming. Instead the closest to consensus we have gotten is that such categories should follow the lead of the closest and most relevant parents. So
Category:Women judges is the most obvious.
Category:Women lawyers is another. It was renamed in April 2014 from
Category:Female layers. On the French side, the ultimate parent is
Category:French women. Of its 22 direct categories, 17 use women, 1 uses females, 3 are duchesses, empresses and countesses. I just added
Category:French queens consorts. Then there is
Category:French beauty pageant winners, in which the whole contents are evidently women by default. Of the 32 sub-cats of
Category:French women by occupation, 24 use women in their names, 3 use females (dancers, models and musicians) and 5 use titles that are only applied to women (actreeses, coutesans, ladies-in-waiting, nuns and religious sisters, midwives). From academics, to lawyers, to psychiatrists, to writers, the term women is used. So the general trend seems to be that any position that requires specific training is going to be denoted with women. There is one sub-cat of
Category:French women scientists that does not follow this convention, I am going to look into fixing that.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose. There may be a valid case to be made that we should move all of ‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›Category:Women judges by nationality and its subcategories to "female" instead of "women" — but that would need to be proposed as a batch discussion on all of them rather than applying to this one alone. So I'd be willing to listen in good faith to a comprehensive proposal, but I can't support this in isolation: regardless of whether we settle on "women" or "female", this and its siblings need to be consistent with each other.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Governors of Kenya
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 in principal. I am not sure governor is the best term, but I am hesitant about ruler. My initial impression is that the colonial rulers would be
Elizabeth II, etc. Which is totally different than the governors, and I am less than convinced the vast extent of a multi-nationam colonial empire makes each subject area defining to the Emperor/Empress/what ever title they use. Is Woodrow Wilson to be defined as a colonial ruler of The Philippines? What of Hawaii? American Samoa? I don't think that is the course we want to go down. Maybe calling the category
Colonial administrators of Kenya would work. We need to keep in mind that we categorize by job, not be title. Thus for example
Category:French queens consort merges the wives of both kings and emperors. The main reason it only has the wives is because France has never had a ruling queen. Queens consort and Princes consort can generally be dplit on lots of grounds related to different perceived roles. On the other hand if a place had bounced between using the title king consort and prince consort we would put all in the same category without regard to title. It is true that change in title often does signify a different job, a president is never quite the same as a queen, even if we compare the president of Israel and Queen Elizabeth II, where both are virtually powerless heads of state.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment. The alternative suggestions all miss the point that the 15 people in this category all held the title of Governor/Governors-General of Kenya/ East Africa Protectorate. This is a well-populated category of top dogs, and I see no need for a rename which would broaden its scope. My proposed rename is to resolve ambiguity, not change scope.
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:Liberal democracies
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:delete, determining if a democracy really is a liberal democracy becomes too subjective. There is some discussion about this on the category talk page as well.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
15:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Strong Delete - This category is very subjective and it really depends on interpretation for what counts as a "liberal democracy" at times. Instead of using categories labelling dictatorship or democracy, we should stick to more neutral ones like "republic" or "monarchy". The Ninja5 Empire (
Talk)03:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Women's sport competitions at the Olympic Games
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep and create more like it. Most Olympic events are gendered as either men-only or women-only, though a small minority are mixed. Gender is therefore a
WP:DEFINING characteristic of Olympic events, so they should be categorised as such.
However, the parent categories use the "term events" (e.g.
Category:2018 Winter Olympics events) rather than the more verbose "sport competitions". So we should have 3 gender trees for Olympic events:
I am fine with closing the nomination. Regarding consensus, we have it, but only three of us participated in the debate. Since the modification of the categorization scheme will have large implications (affect hundreds/thousands of articles), maybe we need some more feedback from the community? But perhaps there is a better venue for that? +--Tone17:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Tone: the nom is free to withdraw a nomination which hasn't been supported. Up to you, but personally I think it's a pity to keep a discussion running when an editor has been at work on a topic. If the concerns are resolved, I reckon its better to close. But you are the nom, so your call. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
17:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Fooian bureaucrats
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: per
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. The vagueness of the term "bureaucrat" is why we have no wider
Category:Bureaucrats: it has too many meanings. Is it any office-worker? Any civil servant or govt official? Or just those with an officious attitude? Does it include bureaucracy in private companies, or is it limited to govt?
Distribute to other categories. I sampled the Pakistani category and it seemed to cover a wider variety of government officials than just civil servants, including those running nationalised industries, diplomats, and military or ex-military. A merger to civil servants would not do, and I cannot think of an appropriate rename.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Move to civil servant catrgories where appropriate. While bureaucrat is often used as a synonym of civil servant, private companies, large religious organizations and non-governmental organizations will also have people who at times will be called bureaucrats. I do not think it is useful to create a category to cover all sucjh people.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:WNBL templates
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.