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: Is this for anyone who has ever served as an expert witness or someone who perennially does so? This doesn't seem like a defining characteristic. BDD (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete I clicked on number of the articles, and only one mentioned expert witness in the lede. Is this really a defining profession? Until I see evidence to the contrary, I'd suggest delete - or drastically prune back, till it only has people who are known and notable for being expert witnesses. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete Trivial information for the majority of those listed. I doubt their lives were defined by their appearance as a witness in a case or two. Dimadick (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people are called as expert witnesses because they are experts on something, it is the specific thing they are an expert on that makes them notable, not that some lawyer called them as a witness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:18, 9 May 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.
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:do not rename (but without prejudice to a future nomination that includes a broader number of similar categories). (I think "sneaky in effect (but not in intent)" is a bit of an oxymoron. It would perhaps be better to avoid the word "sneaky" if one is suggesting the user is innocent.)Good Ol’factory(talk)23:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a test nomination. If it passes, I will nominate the rest of the tree accordingly. Currently, there is a bit of a dual standard - male prostitutes are in "male prostitute" cats, while females sometimes are, but usually not. This is clearly a job where gender/sex matters, so I think the best solution would be to have equal, sibling trees of Category:Male prostitutes and Category:Female prostitutes, without any need for an overarching category for each country. But for now, I'm just testing to see if people agree that we don't need ungendered container categories, and that it would be better to create gendered ones and fully diffuse (additional genders could be added beyond male/female of course). The other option is to sub-cat everything (e.g. Vietnamese prostitutes with subcat Vietnamese female prostitutes), but that seems like a lot of maintenance work for not a lot of benefit. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a test nomination seeking to develop a new view on the whole tree. Currently this is being used to generally assume "female" without actually saying such. We would be much better off if we said such (even though it will then lead to more weird accusations).John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As JPL says, the intent here is to see if there is agreement on *not* having a non-gendered parent here, and in renaming (if we don't rename, it will mean having to move all of the existing female prostitutes down into child categories. In my view, there isn't any reason to have a non-gendered container parent here. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a very good test case. Vietnamese prostitutes is a category of one, within the category Vietnamese sex workers, which includes nothing but this category and this category is also within the category Prostitution in Vietnam, which includes this category and the article on prostitution in Vietnam. It is not that it is generalizing prostitutes as women, but rather that there just aren't any other articles on Vietnamese prostitutes included in the category, presuming other articles exist. Personally, I would prefer that a category have more than one article in it and suggest that if a category can only apply to one article that said category should not exist.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.07:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the tree, it's also pretty typical - most only have a handful of articles. The reason such a category can exist is an exception given, when part of a series.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I'm generally sympathetic torwards "test nominations", having seen the Catch 22 in action on CfD many times (nominate one? "you need to nominate them all"; nominate the whole tree, "too large a nomination"), this is a case where, I believe, discussing the entire tree would be better vs. one then nominating the rest, as there's every possibility that the full nomination, in this case, might result in a different consensus, were this to be renamed, due to larger awarness and participation. (Also, I don't see the problem with "assuming female" in what is, for better or for worse, a predominantly historically female profession, however that might just be me, I'm funny that way.) - The BushrangerOne ping only13:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
so does that mean you wouldn't be averse to a fuller nomination of the whole tree? The argument for separating by gender is not a out who normally does this job, but because sex/gender is critical to the job itself - so it's better to be explicit - a similar thing was done With actors/actresses, and with several sports, since gender is a (rather) determining factor in those fields too. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge/rename to Category:Female prostitutes. Looking at the size of this category and all the other similar categories, I do not think we should have every broken out by nationality. We just do not have enough articles to justify that. Really, I think we should question having long-standing 1 article categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With only 27 by nationality categories this is really a small set of categories. I am not even 100% sure if the article here should be in the category. She seems to be notable for other things, should we really be categorizing every person who was involved at some point in prostitution as a prostitute?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears at present we have less than 150 articles involved in this whole tree. Only 27 by country categories exist, and 4 have only one article. The whole thing seems to involve needlessly fine categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (i.e. do not rename), on both procedural and substantive grounds. Procedurally, it's sneaky to nominate only one category of a type when the same rationale equally applies to its sibling categories. (I assume not sneaky by intent, but sneaky in effect). If the intention is to apply this to a whole range of categories, then nominate them all so that all interested editors are notified ... and if the intent is to rename only this one, then no reason has been offered to make it an exception. Substantively, I am aware of no case where a gendered category-by-occupation lacks a non-gendered parent, and I see no reason to start. Editors may not be aware of the existence of gendered sub-cats, so the nongendered parent may be only category tey try adding. -BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually read what I wrote? please don't call me sneaky. The first line is "This is a test nomination. If it passes, I will nominate the rest of the tree accordingly." It's rather tiresome to nominate a ton of country-tree-categories, when it's not clear where the consensus will lie. To your other point, I think there *are* cases where we have split fully by gender, such as sports and acting - I don't think these cats always have a non-gendered parent for each gendered sub-cat. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the substantive point, we have Category:Male actors and Category:Actressesas subcats of Category:Actors, and so on down the the tree. AFAIK, the same applies to sportspeople; if you have any examples to the contrary, please list them rather than making a vague wave. On the procedural issue, please read what I wrote "sneaky in effect", rather than than intent. However tiresome it is to list all the affected categories, that's the only way to notify those who might be interested (and with judicious use of a text editor, it's not a lot of work). A "test" nomination of one single-article category is not a real test, because it will be noticed only CFD regulars. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 22 May 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.
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: As a follow up a previous nom on Category:American Civil War nurses, I don't see any reason for this category to be gendered as female (esp when we don't have a male equivalent.). The whole nurses tree seems somewhat unisex, and there is an additional category Category:Male nurses which men can be put into, since presumably being male and a nurse is WP:DEFINING and the intersection itself is of interest. This situation is acceptable under our guidelines, because Category:Nurses itself is fully diffusable (by nationality), so as long as all Category:Male nurses are also elsewhere categorized we're ok. Sorry, back to the point - this one should be be renamed, no need for separate gender groupings here. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose being a female nurse in war time is a case where it needs to be so designated as part of the large women in warfare trees. The other catch is while many men are nurses in wartime, they tend to be regular parts of the military and have done other things, while the women were generally just designated as nurses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
withdraw as nom, per reasons given by JPL and Dimadick. I will create the parent cats. Note: we may have to change our guidance at WP:EGRS, which normally disallows these last-rung categories (as Category:Female wartime nurses would be) - perhaps it *should* be allowed in these cases, where we divide by gender? I'll bring that over to WP:EGRS talk page.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:31, 10 May 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:Eastern Orthodox Christians in the French Resistance
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 This is overcategorization by a trivial instersection of religion and action. This is not to say that the religion was triavial to these people, but we do not generally categorize people within political or military movements by religion. It is not a notable trait in the specific context.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 7 May 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.
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 This is another odd intersection of religion and politcal views. I think it mainly comes from the false notion that the Nazis target people based on religion. The Nazis targeted people based on race. They defined Jews racially, as racial enemies. Religion was not part of their issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't think the above comment is entirely accurate - the Nazis weren't very keen on the Jehovah's Witnesses, for example - but leaving that on one side, there needs to be a cat for people like Bonhoeffer Boeselager and von Galen who opposed the Nazis because of their Roman Catholicism. I notice, by the way, that the sub-cat Category:German Catholics opposed to the Third Reich, has also been tagged for deletion but does not appear listed here. Jsmith1000 (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unpoliceable intersection. This category isn't even limited to Italy's Fascist party, so it could contain *ALL* Roman Catholics who have *EVER* identified as "anti-fascist", which, given the degraded state of political discourse in the US, could include pretty much, you know, everyone who has ever expressed a political opinion. And they could also all be classed as "fascists", under the same lack of logic. ... There is a germ of a good idea here for an article that could be written about Roman Catholic anti-Fascist resistance, which should include a list, and should be careful to only discuss those folks whose Catholicism was integral to their anti-fascism, as opposed to anti-fascists who also happened to be Catholic. Anyway, delete this category. --Lquilter (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Anti-fascists. All the arguments so far oppose the intersection between political views and religion. But I see no reason not to simply add these people to the rest of the antifascists. The deletion votes would leave them uncategorized. Dimadick (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge this and its two siblings to Category:Anti-fascists. Apart from Erwin von Lahousen (an Austrian), all the present contents seem to be Slovenes. Since almost all Slovenes are Catholic, I wonder whether a denominational split is in fact useful. Peterkingiron (talk)
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.
Hmm. I'm not sure. I've been reading lots of media reports recently about NFL players coming out of the closet. apparently it is a big deal, at least in certain sports. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (and remove any females), Re-parent (so it's not under a sportsmen category) or Delete - i.e. avoid having a "sportspeople" category under a "sportsmen" category. DexDor (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- As far as I can tell they are all men. Perhaps because the women are in a Lesbian category. However the consensus has been against splitting LGBT categories. The choices are therefore rename per nom or merge to the LGBT category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the consensus is to avoid splitting LGBT, except in certain exceptions. This was one of the exceptions, since we divide sports by gender also.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:37, 9 May 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:Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences winners
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. Per WP:OCAT#Award. Another prestigious award to receive that is non-defining, and more appropriately handled in a list on the award page, rather than as a category. The list can be sorted by year (and even include the auto-sort columns if appropriate), and include nominating information, which makes it much better than the category. Lquilter (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See also May 8 CFD nominating the eponymous category for this award. (Apologies for not picking up on its existence when I nominated this category!) --Lquilter (talk) 02:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is new but significantly important science award recognizing excellence in research aimed at curing intractable diseases and extending human life. You may wish to review other minor awards already listed in the Category:Science award winners. Kgbo (talk) 03:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I am going to review other "minor awards". You may wish to review WP:OCAT which specifies that the criteria for categories is not "notability" or "importance" but whether the category is a "defining" attribute of someone; the subsection WP:OCAT#Award makes a few additional points about awards. Please note that this CFD is not discussing whether the award itself is notable, or whether the award does great things, or whether the people who receive the award find it notable -- just whether the "category" is a useful Wikipedia feature to apply to this award. Lists will in almost all cases be better than categories for organizing information, and the list here does a great job. --Lquilter (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a significant award, but that doesn't make it a WP:DEFINING characteristic of its recipients. Also, awards like this (even if initially given only to individuals) are often given to groups of people which, unless WP has a corresponding article about the group, means that the category contents aren't a good list of recipients. DexDor (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The more I find out about this award, the less I think we need a category for its winners. An award that is given to lots of people at a time is not generally the type of award we categorize by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:28, 9 May 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.
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. WP:OCAT#Award. The Searle Scholars program is another early career funding grant, awarded to 15 scholars / year (total around 450 now) that is prestigious, but not "defining" under the strict standards in WP:Categorization and overcategorization. Notable and worth including notable scholars / recipients in a list on the article about the program (and I will make sure that is done), but not appropriate for a category. Lquilter (talk) 14:49, 7 May 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete -- This is a local football competition in the Sheffield area, covering (perhaps approximately) the former South Yorkshire. Though quite a lot of the teams have blue links, it seems to me that almost all are local amateur sides, which will not deserve having more than an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 9 May 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete - Per WP:OCAT#Award. This is the sort of award that is better handled as a list within the entry for the award, where information about the award winner can be made, sorting can be done, and so forth. Hall of Fame awards recognize existing fame/celebrity/notability; they do not separately confer it. --Lquilter (talk) 15:01, 7 May 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.
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 and listify per WP:OC#AWARD, "People can and do receive awards and/or honors throughout their lives. In general (though there are a few exceptions to this), recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category."
Delete - Per WP:OCAT#Award -- This is non-defining, a recognition of the sorts of things that make people notable, but it does not make them separately notable. This is the sort of award that is better handled as a list within the entry for the award, where information about the award winner can be made, sorting can be done, and so forth. --Lquilter (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is (unfortunately IMHO) the case that categories are for defining characteristics and this isn't one. (Also, if getting an award was the only thing notable about someone, that would surely devalue the award in which case we wouldn't list it - or the person - at all.) --Northernhenge (talk) 17:10, 26 May 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.
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 per WP:OC#AWARD, "People can and do receive awards and/or honors throughout their lives. In general (though there are a few exceptions to this), recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category."
In this case, it is hard to see how receipt of the award could be a WP:DEFINING characteristic of its recipients. The criteria listed at Oklahoma Hall of Fame include being "known for their public service throughout the state" and having "performed outstanding service to humanity, the State of Oklahoma and the United States". Anyone who meets those criteria will be defined by those attributes, rather than by whether or not they receives this award. I checked the 5 articles indexed under the letters G and H (Gregory Gerrer, Thomas Gore, Woody Guthrie, Erle P. Halliburton, V. Burns Hargis) and see no indication that this award is defining for any of them. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:OCAT#Award. This is the sort of award that is better handled as a list within the entry for the award, where information about the award winner can be made, sorting can be done, and so forth. --Lquilter (talk) 15:02, 7 May 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete - Per WP:OCAT#Award, this is a non-defining award. This is the sort of award that is better handled as a list within the entry for the award, where information about the award winner can be made, sorting can be done, and so forth. --Lquilter (talk) 15:02, 7 May 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:National Inventors Hall of Fame inductees
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:OC#AWARD, award categories should be reserved for exceptional and high honours. In this case, I can see no evidence that induction into this Hall of Fame is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the people in this category. I checked 5 articles (Alexander Graham Bell, Clarence Birdseye, László Bíró, Paul Baran, and Robert Adler). Only Baran's bio even mentioned this HoF, and then only in a list of honours rather than in body text.
Delete - Per WP:OCAT#Award. This is the sort of award that is better handled as a list within the entry for the award, where information about the award winner can be made, sorting can be done, and so forth. --Lquilter (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it may not be the highest award worth mentioning for the most notable 20% of winners, it is one of the highest achievements for the other 80% and should be added to their biographies with the appropriate reference and the category kept. It is only overcategorization for the top 20%, the other 80% are undercategorized. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the text of articles in the category doesn't mention the award then that's even more reason to remove such articles from the category. DexDor (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really think we should scap all hall of fame inductee cats. This is clearly overcat by award, and the admission that it is not the highest award for many who recieve it flat out says it does not fit our acception to the rule against award cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think it's actually worth a special mention on WP:OCAT#Award. I'm not sure I've ever seen a "Hall of Fame" that individually conferred notability. --Lquilter (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/upmerge - it's much better to categorize inventors by nationality and by field than by awards received; categories like this distract from those categories. DexDor (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is (unfortunately IMHO) the case that categories are for defining characteristics and this isn't one. (Also, if getting an award was the only thing notable about someone, that would surely devalue the award in which case we wouldn't list it - or the person - at all.) --Northernhenge (talk) 17:10, 26 May 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.
