Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 28 July 30 >

July 29[edit]

Category:Women sociologists[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: Keep. bd2412 T 19:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: "Women sociologists" is a pointless, and in fact sexist category. It is pointless for the same reason that it would be pointless to have a "men sociologists" or "male sociologists" category. Please people, this is the 21st century. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep If that bugs you, I assume Category:Women_scientists_by_field will bug you even more. However, it is important in this tree that we don't ghettoize, by ensuring that all those in Category:Women sociologists are also in the appropriate non-gendered sub-categories of Category:Sociologists - since you care about the appearance of sexism here, this would be an easy thing for you to fix. As to the relevance, I'm not a sociologist nor do I know this field that well, but I'm quite good with Google, which turned up rather quickly:
  1. http://www.asanet.org/about/statuscommittees/women.cfm "Status of Women in Sociology ; Mission: Council established this and three other Status Committees to advise and guide the Association on the status of the discipline and profession of those groups that have experienced a pattern of discrimination in society. "
  2. http://www.socwomen.org/ Sociologists for women in society: "SWS is a non-profit scientific and educational organization of sociologists and others dedicated to: maximizing the effectiveness of and professional opportunities for women in sociology"
  3. Women in Sociology: A Bio-Bibliographical Sourcebook [Hardcover]; author: Mary Jo Deegan
I'll stop there. The point is, Wikipedia reflects society, even in our much-critiqued category system. If there are books, and conferences, and special committees, and societies devoted to the question of women in sociology, it is not at all surprising that a "Women sociologists" category shows up, and since it's clearly a subject of interest and discussion, we should keep the category. Also, you should drop the "sexist" stick, given we have over 8000 categories for women here, its rather silly to call this one out as "sexist" (please look up the definition of sexist - which is discrimination by gender, which we don't see here). Per WP:EGRS, we don't need to have a matching "male" category. Note: Unlike the "Women writers by state" categories below, this one is ok to keep because it is at a sufficiently high-level - there are plenty of possibilities to diffuse to Category:Sociologists_by_field_of_research and Category:Sociologists_by_nationality. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized a rather absurd situation. Here we have a proposal to delete a category because it is "sexist"; below, my proposal to delete another other set of female categories (which have a terrible tendency to ghettoize) is resisted because "Eliminating these categories sends the unfortunate message that male-dominated Wikipedia doesn't consider women to be important as a topic." So - is a gender-specific category sexist, or is deleting a gender-specific category sexist? Stay tuned! But remember, either way you !vote here, someone will think you're a sexist, so, you've got that going for you... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly sexist to insist on women as a category of victims, which is apparently the only real rationale for a "women sociologist" category. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
wait, what? Where is the "victim" part? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is actually general for special treatment of gender and race. This is not a unique problem to Wikipedia. The debates over affirmative action have both sides accusing the other of being racist. There are two philosophies, one for special recognition of women and the other for their treatment as part of an undifferentiated whole. I think though in a field where people do studies, as opposed to crative work, the background of the person is distant enough from their work, that I do not think we should subdivide by gender. Whether we should have say Category:African-American sociologists is another issue though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It might help focus this discussion if an initial {{catmain}} article were started for Women sociologists so we would get a clearer idea of how they are distinct from other sociologists, e.g. men sociologists. It would start with something like
Women sociologists are sociologists who are women. They differ from men sociologists in several ways: ....
I would be willing to start the corresponding article for men sociologists as a {{catmain}} for Category:Men sociologists, but would prefer to see the women one first so I could follow the same structure. Also, many of the sources for the two articles will be the same, describing the differences between the two types of sociologist. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I couldn't agree more with Obi-Wan Kenobi. I only add that perhaps non-specialists should not nominate for deletion categories which are important to the field. If the International Sociological Association feels it is appropriate to have a section on "Women in Sociology", should Wikipedians criticize that state of affairs? Should we eliminate "Feminist studies" categories, too? Eliminate all racial and ethnic categories? Not only are such categories a reflection of the society in which we live, they are essential concepts in the study of society. Meclee (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sad but true. However, if you forget to not diffuse these cats, you get the situation that recently got wikipedia into a lot of trouble. It starts innocently enough - creating a category for "women X" - and then you create one for "African-american X" and soon "African-American women X" and then "LGBT X" and "Lesbian women X" and so on, and then you separate out Jews, and Catholics, and pretty soon, the only people who don't have a subcategory are protestant, straight, white, males. If you've been diffusing to your "special" subcategories, the result is, WASP males are the only ones left in the head category, and all of a sudden what started as an effort to highlight the contributions of group X to subject Y has become a steaming pile of .... anyway, I digress. The point is, as long as you make these non-diffusing cats, they are fine and do no harm.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move? I have no idea what the male/female balance is between notable sociologists. I suspect that in the past there were more men than women in the field but that women will soon start to outnumber the men. I started Category:Men sociologists but hesitated to add many entries to it because the title seems a bit ungrammatical. Would "Female sociologists" and "Male sociologists" be more appropriate titles? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Cat/gender seems to be the relevant guideline. I would say that gender has a specific relation to this topic, since male and female perspectives on sociology may differ significantly. For what it is worth, I get a slightly higher initial count in a Google Books search for "male sociologist" than for "female sociologist". Aymatth2 (talk)
  • Merge to Category:Sociologists although making sure that anyone already in a legitimate sub-cat is not needlessly dup;liately put in the parent. I checked the first 13 articles on women in Category:American sociologists and only 3 of them were in this category. This tells me it is a very underdeveloped category. I do not think in sociology the nature of the person is controlling to their work. There are other issues involved with other sciences, but in sociology women have been heavily involved with little comment. I do not think we should be dividing this category by gender. This is a step too far. Plus as a truly underdeveloped category it opens us up to mocking "look, there are over 600 articles on just American socioloists, but Wikipedia is so male centric, that they only have 70 articles on women sociologists from all over the world" and "there are more articles on American female pornographic film actors than women sociologists, how is any young women ever going to be encouraged by this fact."John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment one problem is we have sociologists who study women's issues, but they are not neccesarily all women in sociology nor are all of them women. Compare say Renata Forste whose work is largely focused on women to Marie Cornwall, whose work is focused on religion. Sociologists should be subdivide by area of study, not biographical facts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is what I posted on the discussion of deleting Category:Men sociologists : Delete ...Personally, my choice is to have a Category:Sociologists and Category:Sociologists of gender that would cover female sociologists who work on gender studies...As an aside, there is a paucity of categories in Category:Sociologists by field of research which should have dozens of categories for different subfields. It shows the lack of participants in WikiProject Sociology. As a sociologist, it is far important for male and female sociologists to be categorized by subdiscipline or subfield than by what sex they are. This is really an area that should be expanded and the Category:Sociologists by sex should be eliminated. Newjerseyliz (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be willing to expand the subdiscipline categories although it will take a while to come up with profiles to fill them. Newjerseyliz (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per remarks of Users Meclee & Obi-Wan Kenobi. Cgingold (talk) 10:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment -- I doubt that female and male sociologists have a significantly different perspectives on their subject. Accordingly my preference might be to merge, but I would not want to oppose a consensus to merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should be the same debate though. We really should decide the issue jointly, even if we do not decide it the same for both.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree that the two should be considered together. WP:Cat/gender is the relevant guideline. Assuming it is not rare and unusual for sociologists to be women, either this category and Category:Men sociologists should both be kept or should both be deleted. Both should be kept if gender has a specific relation to the topic, and both should be deleted if not. It would not be reasonable to keep Category:Men sociologists on the grounds that men differ significantly from other sociologists in their perspective, but to delete Category:Women sociologists on the grounds that women do not differ from the norm, Aymatth2 (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've already incated my support for keeping both categories. It seems to me that having these paired categories is the natural conclusion of a sort of evolutionary process during which having Category:Women sociologists as the only gendered sub-cat was in essence a transitional phase. Btw, I don't think it's necessary or appropriate to invoke a term like "controlling" when considering the issue of gender, any more than a person's nationality or ethnicity or religion is "controlling". That is far too strong a term. The term I would use is "influential" or perhaps "highly influential". Cgingold (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've already supported keeping the category. BTW, this is about SEX not GENDER; if you don't understand the difference take an Intro to Sociology course. It is also not about a simple statistical minority, it is about a minority in social power. Latest publicly available report (2009) from the American Sociological Association ([http://www.asanet.org/documents/ASA/pdfs/committee_on_women.pdf}) shows women in sociology to be both a statistical and power minority in the field. Around 46.6% of all higher-education employed instructors/professors in sociology are women. Only around 31.3% of all FULL professors are women. Regards, Meclee (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So almost half of the professional sociologists are women. The much lower percentage of full professors being women may only indicate that a much higher percentage of younger professors, who have not yet been advanced to being full professors are women. Even then, it is nothing like the US senate, which is currently 20% women, and that is the all time highest it has ever been, with throughout history less than 3% of all US senators having been women.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Category:Men sociologists has been closed as "delete". Various editors, myself included, commented that either both the women & men sociology categories should kept, or both deleted. A decision to keep this category on the basis that women sociologists differ from the norm, while deleting the other on the basis that men sociologists do not differ from the norm would clearly violate WP:Cat/gender. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's now at DRV. -- Trevj (talk) 10:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since deletion of Category:Men sociologists was overturned, they can both be kept. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the remarks of Obiwankenobi. I personally feel it is sexist to delete such categories. Dimadick (talk) 07:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be closed as Keep -- Since Category:Men sociologists has now been kept following DRV, this should also be kept. We should have both or neither. I personally suspect that men and women may differ in the way they approach sociology and what aspects of it they study, but that is merely my POV (even prejudice). Peterkingiron (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2013 (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 writers by state[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: Double merge all - including the ones not explicitly listed here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:EGRS, last-rung categories should not be created. These "women writers by state" are a classic example of a last-rung category, and they only serve to ghettoize. In my review of writers bios, they are quite frequently tagged with only "women writers in X" and not "writers in X", which serves to ghettoize. We already have a women writers tree/category, but I don't think we need to separate women writers by state in the US - it's a step too far. One categorization scheme by gender is ok, but we don't need to combine gender + sub-national location. I'm proposing a merge of all 50 of these to the non-gendered parent; this merge will simultaneously de-ghettoize probably hundreds of women. Again, besides avoiding ghettoization, the main reason is the triple intersection of gender + state + writer goes a bit too far here and isn't necessary. We can divide writers by state on one hand, and by gender on the other hand.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. As the prominent notice on most of these categories states, these are a distinguished subcategories of parent categories such as Category:Writers from Alabama. The categories are supposed to include writers that can also be found in the parent category. This arrangement is intended to prevent ghettoization of women writers -- and, indeed, to permit greater attention to women writers. As for the existence of state-specific categories, there are two reasons for this: (1) it acknowledges the intensely regional nature of a lot of American writing, particularly much American women's writing, and (2) it aids in beginning to populate potentially valuable, but under-populated, categories like Category:Women in Alabama. BACKGROUND: I created some of these state-specific women -- and women writers -- categories during a contentious discussion regarding Category:History of women in Kentucky, which had been populated with a large number of biographical articles through the efforts of a professor who aimed to increased the representation of women's topics in the encyclopedia. Eliminating these categories sends the unfortunate message that male-dominated Wikipedia doesn't consider women to be important as a topic. --Orlady (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Eliminating these categories sends the unfortunate message that male-dominated Wikipedia doesn't consider women to be important as a topic." That's quite a bold thing to say, and I think it's completely not true. Rather, elimination of these categories is in line with the guidance at WP:EGRS that such last-rung-of-the-ladder gender/ethnic categories should not be created, period. One persons "greater attention" is another person's ghetto. We can use a simple category intersection tool of women writers + writers by state to get what you want if that's important to know women writer + state. I added a link that does this to Category:Writers_from_Arkansas as a sample of what can be done (You'll notice that it already returns more results than Category:Women writers_from_Arkansas). At the end of the day, we will be much better off (and much less likely to ghettoize if we put the "women X" categories towards the top of the tree, and not at the bottom. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Intersecting 'People from Arkansas' and 'Women writers' gives even more (30). Oculi (talk) 23:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point... Eventually, if we move to full category intersection, all writers will just be in "Writers", so we'd just intersect "Writers" with "Women" and "People from Arkansas". For now, all of these cats are incompletely filled in.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Dividing women writers to the state level is creating to small of women categories. Such division are not supposed to be at the lowest level, and women writers by state is the lowest level. The claim that "Eliminating these categories sends the unfortunate message that male-dominated Wikipedia doesn't consider women to be important as a topic" is truly bizarre considering that in recent months Wikipedia has been attacked for putting women in separate categories and that this somehow shows a marginalized treatment of women. We should try to be consistent and follow ERGS rules, and stop trying to second guess what people think. Beyond that, since these people will be left in Category:American women writers, the claim that we are eliminating women as a topic really does not hold water. It is also fairly easy to find women in these categories who are not currently in the parent writers by x state category directly, so it is clear that in reality these categories are violating ERGS rules, no matter what their headers may say.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It seems like any writer falling into Category:Women writers from Arkansas should instead be placed in Category:Women writers AND Category:Writers from Arkansas. But to have "occupation by gender and state" is too many levels of categorization and is overcategorization. For me, it doesn't have anything to do with gender, I'd just prefer applying 2 simple categories that are clear than 1 category that is overly complicated and confused. Newjerseyliz (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point - changed this to be a double merge. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2013 (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:1858 establishments in Kansas[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: Snow merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2013 (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.

FIFA U-20 World Cup navboxes[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: Delete since the templates were deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator rationale: They should be deleted because FIFA U-20 World Cup is youth tournament so its navboxes are being considered to be deleted. Banhtrung1 (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2013 (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:Alumni of the University of Cincinnati[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: speedy merge as duplicate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This category is a duplicate of Category:University of Cincinnati alumni and should be deleted. --TommyBoy (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2013 (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:Asian Games teams navigational boxes[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: Keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is continental multi-sport event only. All sub-category also should be deleted. All templates included in this category are being considered to be deleted. For further information, see here, here. Banhtrung1 (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' this is putting the cart before the horse. If the templates are kept, then what would be the reason for deleting this? So delete the templates first, then ask for the categories to be deleted. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2013 (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:Rivers on the Appalachian Trail[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: delete Category:Rivers on the Appalachian Trail; no consensus on Category:Mountains on the Appalachian Trail.
There appears to be a misunderstanding or miscommunication regarding what is means for a characteristic to be defining. If X is a defining characteristic of Y, then the article about Y could be in a category based on X; for example, being a river is a defining characteristic of the Mississippi River, so the article Mississippi River should be in Category:Rivers (or a geographically defined subcategory of it, such as Category:Rivers of the United States). It does not follow, however, that X should be in a category based on Y; for example, the article River should not be in Category:Mississippi River.
In this case, the argument was made (by Orlady, especially) that the association with the Appalachian Trail is a defining characteristic of many of the mountains in the category. Although this position was held by a minority in this discussion, there appears to be enough of a distinction to merit a separate discussion for the 'Mountains' category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a mountain/river is on/near a trail is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the mountain/river (which existed long before the trail). We don't categorize rivers by which roads/railways etc cross them. Note: Category:Protected areas on the Appalachian Trail is not included in this CFD as that contains at least one article for which the trail may be a defining characteristic - however, that category should be purged (and then possibly upmerged). Note: Some similar categories (example) (and the parent cat of these cats) are already being discussed, but that CFD has problems because of being so wide-ranging. DexDor (talk) 06:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete rivers - no opinion on mountains Agathoclea (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the rivers category. Keep the mountains category. The rivers category is a non-defining trivial intersection. Since the Appalachian Trail largely follows mountain crests (i.e., divides between watersheds), it has very little relationship with rivers. On the other hand, the association with the Appalachian Trail is a defining attribute for most of the places discussed by pages in the "mountains" category. The article List of peaks on Appalachian Trail in Georgia is obviously about the Appalachian Trail. Pages like Lambs Knoll and Mount Moosilauke are about places along the trail whose notability is largely or exclusively connected with the trail; while Charlies Bunion, Tricorner Knob, and Rocky Mountain (Rockbridge County, Virginia) are examples of notable landmarks in protected areas that are landmarks on the trail. I think a couple of the pages in the "mountains" category (such as Roan Mountain (Roan Highlands)) might be more appropriately slotted into Category:Protected areas on the Appalachian Trail (which I believe should be kept; the Appalachian Trail is itself a National Park Service unit, that connects and traverses a large number of other protected areas) and a few others (such as Mount Hight and South Carter Mountain) don't mention the Trail, but those kinds of issues can be resolved separately. --Orlady (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. They are a good way to organize Category:Appalachian Trail. Remove categories Category:Rivers of the United States and Category:Mountains of the United States to address the concerns of geographical defining characteristics. Gjs238 (talk) 09:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS: The Trail may or may not be a defining characteristic of a particular mountain or river, but the mountain or river may very well be a defining characteristic of the Trail. Gjs238 (talk) 09:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • These comments by Gjs238 suggest a misunderstanding of the terminology used in WP:CFD. The condition of being a river is a inherent property of a river, herein called a "defining characteristic" of a river, meaning that an individual river belongs in a category for rivers. Similarly, the geographical condition of being in the United States (or a subpart thereof, such as West Virginia) is a defining characteristic for a physical feature such as a river, mountain, or island located in the U.S. Accordingly, categories like Category:Rivers of the United States are based on defining characteristics of the pages they contain. See WP:Categorization and WP:Overcategorization for more explication of the concepts being applied here. The nominator is asserting that an association with the Appalachian Trail is not a defining characteristic for the rivers and mountains in these categories. I agree with this assertion in the case of the rivers, but because the "mountains" are in most cases specific points (landmarks) on the trail (and may owe their notability, name, and other characteristics from being landmarks on the trail), I see the association with the trail as a defining characteristic for the mountains. --Orlady (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggestion Could we perhaps create Category:Geography of the Appalachian Trail and place Category:Rivers on the Appalachian Trail and Category:Mountains on the Appalachian Trail therein? Gjs238 (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is everything in the US along the Appalachian Trail, or did I misunderstand your proposal? Agathoclea (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected links in my above post. Gjs238 (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The trail is not defining for either the river or the mountain.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The mountains should be in a category for that mountain range, or are the mountains on the trail a subcategory of the trail? The rivers should not be categorized in this way at all. This is a performance by performer category. We have recently been deleting categories for places on trails. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question To make the category Appalachian Trail-centric, would a rename to Appalachian Trail Rivers be more appropriate? The current title seems to be interpreted by most as geography-centric. Gjs238 (talk) 11:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, a river (or anything else for that matter) should only be categorized by its WP:DEFINING characteristics. DexDor (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • But how to categorize the trail? Are not rivers, mountains, etc defining characteristics of the trail? Gjs238 (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not the point - even if a river/mountain is a defining characteristic of the trail that doesn't mean the trail is a defining characteristic of the river/mountain. DexDor (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) KEEP Mountains (2) DELETE rivers. -- The Applachian Trail is a trail through the great mountains of the eastern seaboard...from Mt. Katahdin, the White Mountains, through to the Neversink, Delaware and Kittatinny Valley as the trail follows the ridge of the Shawangunk Ridge (NY), Kittatinny Mountain (NJ), and Blue Mountain (Pennsylvania) (PA), the ridge of the Great Smokeys, etc. etc. etc. The Mountains define the trail and the trail traverses the ridges of them for large parts of its length. 95% of the trail in NJ, some 45-50 miles, follows the ridge of Kittatinny Mountain. As for the rivers...sure, it's a neat category, but the trail just crosses those, briefly...like seriously, the one-mile long 15-foot wide Shawpocussing Creek/Stony Brook in NJ at the Delaware Water Gap isn't really important and not any more important just because the Trail crosses it.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if it's true that "The Mountains define the trail..." that doesn't mean that the trail is a defining characteristic of the mountains. DexDor (talk) 06:37, 14 August 2013 (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:Secular Jewish culture[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: Keep. The nomination and the close do not address the issues of content raised in the discussion. So if some of the articles need to be moved to a different, possibly new, category, that is acceptable with this close. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. If this is renamed, subcategories ...in Canada and ...in the United States can be speedy renamed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: This is a merge proposal, not a rename, since both exist. Johnbod (talk) 04:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. Newjerseyliz (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The nominator hasn't even supplied a rationale for this proposal -- which isn't surprising, since it makes no sense. Aside from the fact that it's really a merge proposal, not a rename, the overriding consideration is that I created this category in the first place precisely to distinguish the secular aspects of Jewish culture from the religious aspects. The category has served that purpose for 6 years since its creation and should be retained as is. Cgingold (talk) 10:13, 1 August 2013 (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 Pelhams, New York[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: keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete category because it categorizes on the basis of a non-defining characteristic. The article The Pelhams, New York indicates that "The Pelhams" is a colloquial term for several neighboring communities that share similar names. That is not a defining characteristic that can be a basis for categorization. Some of the contents should be upmerged to Category:Geography of Westchester County, New York, but several of the pages in the category are about buildings and other non-geographic topics that should not be upmerged there. Orlady (talk) 03:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep There are websites and facebook groups and newspapers (http://www.pelhamplus.com/) devoted to this grouping, so I don't see why we can't categorize articles in this way. They are not grouped together b/c wikipedians think the articles have the same name, they are grouped together because all of the articles are about topics within what is currently defined by outside RS as "The Pelhams". --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existence of websites, facebook groups, and newspapers for "The Pelhams" does not make "The Pelhams" a defining geography. There are myriad websites, facebook groups, and local newspapers that identify themselves with geographic clusterings that aren't defining -- and aren't an appropriate basis for Wikipedia geographic categorization. --Orlady (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's telling that your comment refers to a presumption about the topic. The main article for the category is unsourced. A few references have been added to it at various times in the almost 9 years since it was created, but they've been removed for various reasons. I've looked for corroborating sources at various times, but I've had no success in verifying the article. --Orlady (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_29&oldid=1138398144"