- 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. I, too, have come to abhor the poorly constructed Women X naming format but doubt we'll be able to move away from it soon. On the question of deleting or retaining the category, which occupied most of this discussion, I also see no clear consensus. User:Bearcat's argument was most compelling (and seemed to draw from WP:CAT/GRS), but whether women "face obstacles" is an immeasurably low standard from a global perspective—by this standard, virtually every occupation would need to be split by sex/gender given the obstacles women face in places such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Lastly, I wish to stress that, per WP:CAT/GRS, the existence of a female occupation category does not automatically imply the need for a male occupation category, and vice versa, so a discussion about one does not necessarily need to include the other, thought it's admittedly a good idea in many cases. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 15:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: I greatly detest the phrase "women comedians". For one thing, women is a noun and female is an adjective, so it's the wrong word type. It hits the ear wrong. Secondly, why on earth do we need two words when 'comediennes' was invented for this very purpose? Has the word recently acquired a pejorative meaning I'm unaware of? Laun chba ller 21:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose, especially considering there is no alternative suggestion. Just take a look in Category:Women by occupation and you'll see 'Women' is preferred to 'female'. There have been numerous CfD discussions moving categories from 'female' to 'women'. Sionk ( talk) 23:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't spot the "Choose type of action wanted" menu on the Twinkle popup. What I meant was this:
- Propose renaming Category:Women comedians to Category:Comediennes-- Laun chba ller 00:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'd still oppose this proposal too. I can't find any woman comedians who call themselves comediennes, or an abundance of sources that use the term. The word seems to be a casualty of the 21st century move away from gender-specific words. Sionk ( talk) 18:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete; a comedian follows a profession in which one's sex isn't highly relevant. For this purpose, a comedienne is more similar to an aviatrix than to an actress. Nyttend ( talk) 22:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - I would say that the performance of a woman comedian is likely to be completely different from that of a male. There is Women in comedy for instance. I can find by google women comedians who object stridently to 'comedienne' ("I am not French", being the objection). Oculi ( talk) 10:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete these folks don't compete uniquely based on sex like most sportspeople or certain other professions. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- So are you going to propose to delete Category:Male comedians too? The proposal is whether or not to rename the category. Deleting male/female categories is a bigger question entirely. Sionk ( talk) 21:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- I can't speak for Carlos, but I would vote to delete it. Seeing that people are constantly creating categories for women in sex-unrelated categories without creating parallel categories for men, I didn't realise that there was one. Nyttend ( talk) 00:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Procedural comments, the category should only be deleted if Category:Male comedians is deleted in conjunction. It would be even better if we include categories at a lower level as well, e.g. by proposing to merge all categories by nationality and gender, because if we delete Category:Women comedians and Category:Male comedians without touching the rest of the tree, a lot of stuff becomes orphaned. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep For heaven's sake. Very defining. This sort of thing is how Cfd manages to create global news stories. Johnbod ( talk) 15:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. This is still very male-dominated; women face obstacles in this field which simply do not ever encounter. Women in comedy exists for a reason. ℯ xplicit 00:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. The basis for gendered categories does not vest solely in the question of whether men and women do the job differently (which is almost never true of any job), but in whether reliable source coverage exists about the relevance of gender to the occupation. In the case of comedians, women in the field do still face gendered obstacles, namely the fact that the obviously absurd "women can't be funny" thing is still around and still gets discussed and analyzed by cultural critics and reliable sources. That's the relevance. Bearcat ( talk) 02:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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 16:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERCAT. There is no evidence that membership in this trade association is a "defining characteristic" for any of these companies (or for many of the other member companies that have not yet been categorized here). UnitedStatesian ( talk) 13:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support, it is not even mentioned in the articles at all. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
ℯ
xplicit
00:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Works about economics to Category:Works about the economy
- Nominator's rationale: economics is a social science, these works are not about the science but about the subject of that science. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose, as some of the contents are about wider topics in economics. – Fayenatic London 19:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep -- The present name is perfectly clear. The target less so. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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:
Relisted at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 26#9th-century German people.
ℯ
xplicit
00:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- Propose splitting Category:9th-century German people to Category:People of the Carolingian Empire and Category:9th-century people from East Francia
- Propose merging Category:9th-century German women to Category:Women of the Carolingian Empire (and add articles to Category:9th-century people from East Francia if appropriate)
- Propose merging Category:9th-century German writers to Category:Writers of the Carolingian Empire (and add articles to Category:9th-century people from East Francia if appropriate)
- Nominator's rationale: split/merge since there aren't any 9th-century people who are known as German people. The current territory of Germany was part of the much bigger Carolingian Empire of which East Francia was a later subdivision (which eventually in 962 became the Holy Roman Empire). Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose As a bad an idea as the others! Johnbod ( talk) 15:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support Part of a comprehensive scheme to eliminate these ahistorical inaccuracies. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 21:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
ℯ
xplicit
03:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Copper mining in Africa to Category:Copper mining
- Nominator's rationale: Most of the sub cats would be perfectly happy in Category:Copper mining by country. Not really enough articles to split by continent. Rathfelder ( talk) 19:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose, there appears to be plenty of content to warrant an Africa category. Sionk ( talk) 22:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- That would mean quite a lot of work if we are going to include all the categories like Copper Mining in Foo, and do the same for the other continents, and then for the other sorts of mining. We have a well populated Category:Mining in Africa. Do we need to break it down like this? Rathfelder ( talk) 16:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- There are 64 articles in the category, so the deletion/upmerge rationale is flawed. It would only mean 'quite a lot of work' if someone chooses to create similar categories, for Europe, Asia etc. Sionk ( talk) 14:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- keep as is there is no valid reason to make this change, which will not help readers to navigate to articles that may interest them Hmains ( talk) 16:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - there are plenty of articles and the country subcats are already in Category:Copper mining by country. Another of Rathfelder's rather bewildering noms. Oculi ( talk) 17:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- There are only 5 articles which are not already categorised to country level. They would all fit quite happily in Category:Mining in Africa. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- What is the objection to making Category:Copper mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo a subcat of Category:Copper mining in Africa? I would myself make such an uncontroversial inclusion without expecting anyone to object, and without feeling any obligation to create Category:Diamond mining in Africa or Category:Copper mining in Europe. (There is Category:Coal in Africa.) Oculi ( talk) 10:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep -- This has 5 substantive articles, which is enough to keep. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete; this just adds another layer of navigation unnecessarily. One of the articles is already in Category:Copper mining, and the others could just get put there. One of the subcategories is already in Category:Copper mining by country, and the others could easily be put there. An outlying category, like this one, is useful when it represents a large and homogenous group of articles (to segregate them from less-related ones), and geographic subcategories in general are good when they represent a systematic split-up of a worldwide category, but a little outlying category simply makes you click more links before you get to the article(s) you want to read. Nyttend ( talk) 22:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Merge the articles to Category:Mining in Africa and Category:Copper mining (without the subcategories which are already in Category:Copper mining by country and Category:Mines in foo-country), for consistency with the other continents and currently there are only three articles left. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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. I, too, have come to abhor the poorly constructed Women X naming format but doubt we'll be able to move away from it soon. On the question of deleting or retaining the category, which occupied most of this discussion, I also see no clear consensus. User:Bearcat's argument was most compelling (and seemed to draw from WP:CAT/GRS), but whether women "face obstacles" is an immeasurably low standard from a global perspective—by this standard, virtually every occupation would need to be split by sex/gender given the obstacles women face in places such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Lastly, I wish to stress that, per WP:CAT/GRS, the existence of a female occupation category does not automatically imply the need for a male occupation category, and vice versa, so a discussion about one does not necessarily need to include the other, thought it's admittedly a good idea in many cases. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 15:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: I greatly detest the phrase "women comedians". For one thing, women is a noun and female is an adjective, so it's the wrong word type. It hits the ear wrong. Secondly, why on earth do we need two words when 'comediennes' was invented for this very purpose? Has the word recently acquired a pejorative meaning I'm unaware of? Laun chba ller 21:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose, especially considering there is no alternative suggestion. Just take a look in Category:Women by occupation and you'll see 'Women' is preferred to 'female'. There have been numerous CfD discussions moving categories from 'female' to 'women'. Sionk ( talk) 23:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't spot the "Choose type of action wanted" menu on the Twinkle popup. What I meant was this:
- Propose renaming Category:Women comedians to Category:Comediennes-- Laun chba ller 00:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'd still oppose this proposal too. I can't find any woman comedians who call themselves comediennes, or an abundance of sources that use the term. The word seems to be a casualty of the 21st century move away from gender-specific words. Sionk ( talk) 18:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete; a comedian follows a profession in which one's sex isn't highly relevant. For this purpose, a comedienne is more similar to an aviatrix than to an actress. Nyttend ( talk) 22:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - I would say that the performance of a woman comedian is likely to be completely different from that of a male. There is Women in comedy for instance. I can find by google women comedians who object stridently to 'comedienne' ("I am not French", being the objection). Oculi ( talk) 10:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete these folks don't compete uniquely based on sex like most sportspeople or certain other professions. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- So are you going to propose to delete Category:Male comedians too? The proposal is whether or not to rename the category. Deleting male/female categories is a bigger question entirely. Sionk ( talk) 21:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- I can't speak for Carlos, but I would vote to delete it. Seeing that people are constantly creating categories for women in sex-unrelated categories without creating parallel categories for men, I didn't realise that there was one. Nyttend ( talk) 00:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Procedural comments, the category should only be deleted if Category:Male comedians is deleted in conjunction. It would be even better if we include categories at a lower level as well, e.g. by proposing to merge all categories by nationality and gender, because if we delete Category:Women comedians and Category:Male comedians without touching the rest of the tree, a lot of stuff becomes orphaned. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep For heaven's sake. Very defining. This sort of thing is how Cfd manages to create global news stories. Johnbod ( talk) 15:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. This is still very male-dominated; women face obstacles in this field which simply do not ever encounter. Women in comedy exists for a reason. ℯ xplicit 00:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. The basis for gendered categories does not vest solely in the question of whether men and women do the job differently (which is almost never true of any job), but in whether reliable source coverage exists about the relevance of gender to the occupation. In the case of comedians, women in the field do still face gendered obstacles, namely the fact that the obviously absurd "women can't be funny" thing is still around and still gets discussed and analyzed by cultural critics and reliable sources. That's the relevance. Bearcat ( talk) 02:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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 16:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERCAT. There is no evidence that membership in this trade association is a "defining characteristic" for any of these companies (or for many of the other member companies that have not yet been categorized here). UnitedStatesian ( talk) 13:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support, it is not even mentioned in the articles at all. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
ℯ
xplicit
00:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Works about economics to Category:Works about the economy
- Nominator's rationale: economics is a social science, these works are not about the science but about the subject of that science. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose, as some of the contents are about wider topics in economics. – Fayenatic London 19:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep -- The present name is perfectly clear. The target less so. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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: Relisted at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 26#9th-century German people.
ℯ
xplicit
00:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- Propose splitting Category:9th-century German people to Category:People of the Carolingian Empire and Category:9th-century people from East Francia
- Propose merging Category:9th-century German women to Category:Women of the Carolingian Empire (and add articles to Category:9th-century people from East Francia if appropriate)
- Propose merging Category:9th-century German writers to Category:Writers of the Carolingian Empire (and add articles to Category:9th-century people from East Francia if appropriate)
- Nominator's rationale: split/merge since there aren't any 9th-century people who are known as German people. The current territory of Germany was part of the much bigger Carolingian Empire of which East Francia was a later subdivision (which eventually in 962 became the Holy Roman Empire). Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose As a bad an idea as the others! Johnbod ( talk) 15:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support Part of a comprehensive scheme to eliminate these ahistorical inaccuracies. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 21:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
ℯ
xplicit
03:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Copper mining in Africa to Category:Copper mining
- Nominator's rationale: Most of the sub cats would be perfectly happy in Category:Copper mining by country. Not really enough articles to split by continent. Rathfelder ( talk) 19:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose, there appears to be plenty of content to warrant an Africa category. Sionk ( talk) 22:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- That would mean quite a lot of work if we are going to include all the categories like Copper Mining in Foo, and do the same for the other continents, and then for the other sorts of mining. We have a well populated Category:Mining in Africa. Do we need to break it down like this? Rathfelder ( talk) 16:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- There are 64 articles in the category, so the deletion/upmerge rationale is flawed. It would only mean 'quite a lot of work' if someone chooses to create similar categories, for Europe, Asia etc. Sionk ( talk) 14:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- keep as is there is no valid reason to make this change, which will not help readers to navigate to articles that may interest them Hmains ( talk) 16:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - there are plenty of articles and the country subcats are already in Category:Copper mining by country. Another of Rathfelder's rather bewildering noms. Oculi ( talk) 17:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- There are only 5 articles which are not already categorised to country level. They would all fit quite happily in Category:Mining in Africa. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- What is the objection to making Category:Copper mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo a subcat of Category:Copper mining in Africa? I would myself make such an uncontroversial inclusion without expecting anyone to object, and without feeling any obligation to create Category:Diamond mining in Africa or Category:Copper mining in Europe. (There is Category:Coal in Africa.) Oculi ( talk) 10:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep -- This has 5 substantive articles, which is enough to keep. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete; this just adds another layer of navigation unnecessarily. One of the articles is already in Category:Copper mining, and the others could just get put there. One of the subcategories is already in Category:Copper mining by country, and the others could easily be put there. An outlying category, like this one, is useful when it represents a large and homogenous group of articles (to segregate them from less-related ones), and geographic subcategories in general are good when they represent a systematic split-up of a worldwide category, but a little outlying category simply makes you click more links before you get to the article(s) you want to read. Nyttend ( talk) 22:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Merge the articles to Category:Mining in Africa and Category:Copper mining (without the subcategories which are already in Category:Copper mining by country and Category:Mines in foo-country), for consistency with the other continents and currently there are only three articles left. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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.