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. As in any situation of this type, the outcome can be revisited if additional articles are created that could be categorized. -- Black Falcon(talk) 05:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Only has 2 entries, one of which is the town itself. ...William 23:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The usual solution is to merge to a county category, but here the settlement is split between three of them. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there's no merge target per Peterkingiron, and because the contents are expandable. There's also a Category:People from Reynoldsburg, Ohio, and a site on the NRHP in Reynoldsburg that should have its own article. Reynoldsburg High School has since been split into two campuses (and so arguably two articles), and there is not yet an article on the city's school district. postdlf (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if we had all the articles postdlf mentions that would still not be enough to justify this category. We do not need categories for every small place. The high school is adequately covered by the county category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of the content is in appropriate categories. If more content becomes available, then the category can be recreated. I'll also point out that creating this category will be difficult since it is in 3 counties making parenting interesting and probably making subcategories overly complex by needing subdivision by county. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:28, 18 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.
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: "Windows 8 software" can refer to just any piece of software that runs on Windows 8. Articles in this category are Metro-style apps: Apps designed based on Metro (design language), run on Windows Runtime platform and sold, installed and serviced via Windows Store. Metro-style apps also run on Windows Server 2012 and probably any new OS that Microsoft produces. Codename Lisa (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is there a need for a subset of the "metro-style apps" that run on Windows 8, as opposed to others that may not? – PhilosopherLet us reason together. 04:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I am not sure if I got your question right; are you asking whether there is a group of Metro-style apps that, for instance, run on Windows 8 and not Windows 8.1 or Server 2012? Although theoretically such apps are possible, there will be a long time before Wikipedia have a large number of articles on such apps. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - According to the article Metro (design language), "Microsoft dropped the use of 'Metro-style apps' phrase to refer to Windows Runtime-based applications developed according to the design language; Microsoft temporarily used 'Modern apps' before starting to use 'Windows Store apps' and 'Windows 8 apps'." There's no doubt that Modern apps is too ambiguous, but I wonder whether Windows Store apps or Windows 8 apps is sufficiently precise. Or can it, like Windows 8 software, refer to a larger category of software than is included in this category? Thank you, -- Black Falcon(talk) 03:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for the comment. First, the rest of the world call it "Metro-style apps" and WP:COMMONNAME cares about this. That's why rename requests for the article are rejected so often. Second, Microsoft has dropped "Windows 8 apps" too. "Windows Store apps" is what being used. Finally, "Windows 8 app" is different from "Windows 8 software". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: I am not exactly proud of being a practical thinker, but practically speaking, the suggested name is much better than current name. Under current name, people would simply put not just Metro-style apps but also desktop apps that support Windows 8 only, desktop apps that support Windows 8 and previous versions of Windows, and apps that support previous versions of Windows but the editor believes/thinks/suspects run on Windows 8. Fleet Command (talk) 15:29, 1 October 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:upmerge. -- Black Falcon(talk) 20:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge - to Category:Sociologists. I question the wisdom of segregating this profession by sex or gender (do lady sociologists sociologize differently than gentleman sociologists?) but this will never be used for anything other than holding the two subcats. Unnecessary category layer. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Not a useful level of subcategorization. If people still want to weigh in on the main matter Category:Women sociologists is still under discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to match the other similar categories. Dimadick (talk) 07:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - "by gender" is the standard agreed-upon term for such categories. Cgingold (talk) 08:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom for consistency. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Sociologists. I do not think there is a significant differnece between the work of men and women sociologists. If kept, it should be renamedd "by gender" according to normal current usage, now that "sex" has come to mean the sex act. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can those who are supporting a rename per nom address the question as to how this category under either name is helpful? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The usefulness of this category is more subject to whether we have Category:Men sociologists and Category:Women sociologists. Whether we have those two categories is an issue that has been discussed elsewhere. If we were to get rid of those categories, we would automatically get rid of this one. I guess we do not need to keep this one with those, but it seems some feel we need to have separate categories to delineate the ways we divide Category:Sociologists. This is not really a good place to discuss whether men and women sociologists should be so group, that discussion is better done elsewhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm not seeing the comparison between organizing people through a layer of subcategorization by something of which there are many potential subcats (sport) and one where there will likely never be more than two. It seems bizarre to make someone looking for Category:Women sociologists to click through this category to get to it. It doesn't aid navigation; it hinders it. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Readers may be more interested in the numbers than the list. I find the comparative numbers in Category:Sociologists by sex interesting and unexpected: 19 men and 83 women. An intermediate category like this gives a convenient way for readers to compare the numbers for a given breakdown, in this case the breakdown by gender. If I were looking for a particular sociologist, I would search by name. If I wanted to scan through either list, one more click at the start would not bother me. (There are five entries in Category:Wikipedians by gender. Sociologists may of course have fewer genders.) Aymatth2 (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INTERESTING isn't a reason for keeping something and even if it were I'm unclear as to how that is lost by having the two sub-categories sitting directly in Category:Sociologists. Anyone interested in seeing at a glance how many of the articles on women sociologists have been placed in the particular sub-category (which, since articles are not automatically categorized, offers no meaningful information about the number of such articles exist) may still do so, with the added convenience of not having to click through an unnecessary layer of categorization to get to it. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping the gendered categories does not require that this category also be kept. Keeping the subcats and merging this category is a legitimate result. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "upmerge" opinions seem to be mainly about whether the two subcategories should be kept. If the subcategory deletion discussion were closed, then we could more easily decide on rename vs. keep vs. upmerge for this grouping. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the upmerge votes are about whether it makes sense to maintain a container category that will never contain anything other than the sub-categories. Just because a subject is broken down by gender doesn't men that "Subject by gender" makes sense as a container for those broken down categories. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a question about the name of the container, not its existence. The upmergers say, "I question the wisdom of segregating this profession by sex or gender", "I do not think there is a significant difference between the work of men and women sociologists" and "no reliable sources show that men and women do this job differently." Those comments belong in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 29#Category:Women sociologists, not here. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If consensus emerges that the container category is unnecessary then upmerging it to the parent is a legitimate outcome. Once a category comes here all possibilities are on the table. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was not proposing upmerging, that is the subject of several other CfD proposals and you can move on to those discussions if you wish to offer your opinion on whether readers will ever search out a professional category by gender. It's not that women and men do sociology different but they tend to specialize in different subdiciplines. But for this proposal, I'd like to confine the debate to this specific rename and let the other CfD proposals settle whether the categories of Men Sociologists and Women Sociologists should exist. LizRead!Talk! 02:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you don't get to restrict the scope of the discussion. This is not about whether the gendered sub-categories should exist. Upmerging was suggested because this is a small category with no potential for growth. Whether or not someone might search out specifically male or female sociologists is irrelevant to whether a category designed never to hold anything but two sub-categories should exist. Yes, if the category is retained it should be renamed in line with convention. But no one has yet to offer a convincing rationale why those searching specifically for male or female sociologists should have to go through the bother of navigating through an extra layer of categories to find them. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The comparative numbers tell us nothing about the discipline. They just tell us about the propensity of editors to add people to the categories, plus the age of the categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note This category was not tagged until just now. Due to the fact that adding articles to a category does not show up on any history of the category itself, tagging the category is the most important phase of notifying involved people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The balance is now 124 in the men category and 90 in the women category. Most of the change from the last mentioned balance was brought about by placing all articles in Category:German sociologists that mentioned the subjects sex into the appropriate category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. Regardless of whether we split off categories for the male or female sociologists, I don't see the point of having this two-subcategory holding category. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
upmerge we don't need this little container category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closer's note: This category was tagged on 16:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC), and it should remain open until at least 16:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC). Please note that neither Category:Men sociologists nor Category:Women sociologists is tagged as part of this nomination; therefore, their fate cannot be decided by this discussion. However, this discussion can decide whether there should be an intermediate layer of categorization between Category:Sociologists and the Men/Women categories—and, if consensus supports that idea, what the category should be named. -- Black Falcon(talk) 05:00, 22 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.
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 and WP:NOTDEFINING. Per WP:CAT Categories are meant to be defining characteristics of the topic and this category does not meet that criteria. Being that this award is widely conferred upon military members (SNCOs and O-4/5s generally) it is a non-defining characteristic, even if an individual received multiple MSMs it would not make them notable by Wikipedia standards. — -dainomite 06:10, 14 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.
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. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Why should it be renamed? The current category is about "reincarnations in novels", i.e. the novel may contain one or more characters that reincarnate, while the plot may be about something completely different. But your suggested name "Novels about reincarnations" implies that the novel itself is centered around reincarnations. De728631 (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the scope of the two is different, since the current name can cover articles about elements from novel(s) (such as character articles), while the suggested name would only allow novel articles. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 07:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For what it is worth, all 4 articles currently in the category are on novels. Whether this is how we went it to be, I do not know, but it is how things are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable genre; suffers the usually failings of "about" categories: how much about the subject must it be and who tells us (reliably sourced) that it's at least that much. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Novels about reincarnation (singular) per well-reasoned arguments of Black Falcon. Use of the singular is important because it allows inclusion of novels that are about the subject of reincarnation, not just those that feature a main character who has reincarnated. Cgingold (talk) 08:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete suffers the general ills of the "about" categories; how much about the subject must the novel be and what reliable sources say it's at least that much. Here there's none, so the cat is pure subjectivity. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's clear that these are two different categories. In the first, reincarnation as a theme within a novel. In the latter, the novel is ABOUT reincarnation. Would you say that the categories "Death in novels" is the same as "Novels about death"? Many novels have themes of death and resurrection, it's different to have a novel center on the subject of death. LizRead!Talk! 02:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The articles are novels about reincarnation, they are not articles on the subject of reincarnation in novels. Thus the current name wrongly identifies the contents of the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:04, 20 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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 22. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)