Category:Women Fellows of the Association for Computing Machinery[edit]
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:Merge to . Timrollpickering (talk) 07:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Non-notable intersection by gender, per WP:OC#EGRS. Both parent categories (Women Computer Scientists and ACM Fellows) are notable, defining characteristics, individually well attested in reliable sources, and suitable for being categories. But the ACM Fellows program does not separate out women, nor would it be appropriate to make little segregated women-only subcategories for all the various computer scientist categories. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete agree per nom - not notable intersection --KarlB (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to both parents, i.e Category:Fellows of the Association for Computing Machinery and Category:Women computer scientists, and listify. The nominator makes a weak case for removing this category, because it appears that we have only 10 articles on women fellows of this association, and 361 on men; that suggests to me that a woman fellow of the association is a defining characteristic amongst such fellows. However, per WP:CATGRS we don't separate women out unless the resulting intersection is itself an existing topic of scholarly research (and I don't see any evidence that it is), so a list is better. The crucial reason for merger is that because the nominated category is at the the end of the category tree, it ghettoises women, and that is deprecated at WP:CATGRS#Special_subcategories. Please note that the effect of the nominator's proposal to delete the category would be to remove all these women from Category:Fellows of the Association for Computing Machinery, which would be much much much much worse than having them ghettoised. These women shoukd still be categorised as fellows, so the correct action is merger. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are more women fellows on whom we have articles but who are not listed here; Ming Lin for instance. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I could see, all the articles that were listed here were already also listed in the parent categories. But if there are any that aren't, then certainly they should be merged. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If they are already in the parent categ, then the bot will handle that situation without causing duplicate entries in each page's category list. If the intention is merger, then it is always best to do a merger, so that there is no risk of any articles being omitted from the target category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
Merge to bot parents. This is (or should be) a field where gender is immaterial. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2012 (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.
Keep – this groups together the 3 subcats: nothing is duplicated, there is no overlap and the category is well-populated with all the various works of AC - poems, plays, books. Has the nom not noticed Category:Works by author? Oculi (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"there is no overlap and the category is well-populated " — say what?? There are but three entries in the category (Works) and they belong to the other specified categories (Plays, Books, Poetry). Quis separabit? 19:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Works by author is an established container-category scheme. Many authors do not have eponymous categories, so these categories serve the job of aggregating their works-based categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. There's a scheme for Works by author with 712 subcategories, and Christie is a famous author with several works categories, so this should stay.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oculi and Mike Selinker. This category fits the convention of Category:Works by author, and serves a useful function as a container category for the three subcategories, as well as holding an an article on a short story by her, and and the bibliography. However, it should have been tagged with {{container category}}, so I will now add that template. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - container categories are important and useful parts of the category navigation scheme. When there are large numbers of works by an author, it is useful to split them up by genre. A parallel example to this one is Category:Works by P. G. Wodehouse. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- With an author as prominent as Agatha Christie, the full tree is appropriate. For a novelist who produced a few poems or other (non-novel) works, it might be appropriate to merge (say) the poetry cat into the works. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename without prejudice to a wider nomination of the entire South African tree. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per this nomination, we've changed the "Old Boys" name where it has appeared. The South African category format is "Alumni of (X)." For further discussion about why we're making this kind of change, see nominations like this one.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
rename for consistency and per arguments from previous discussions.--KarlB (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and many recent cfds. Oculi (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and per recent CFDs. Snappy (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
REname if that is really the preferred South African format. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have some doubts that "alumni" is genuinely the South African term (tho I have seen no evidence either way). However, once these categories are standardised, it might be a good idea to look at changing the South African convention to the neutral "People educated at" now used for the United Kingdom, Ireland, Jersey, Guernsey, Qatar, Australia, New Zealand, and Barbados. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with changing all of the categories to "People educated at." If that's what we want to do, we can do it now and I will immediately nominate the others for that change.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be a bit messy to change the rename targets when several editors have already !voted, but if you want to take the plunge I'll support it a change to PEA now. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to "Alumni..." for consistency, without prejudice against later renomination of the group as PEAs. - The BushrangerOne ping only 07:07, 24 April 2012 (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.
