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 for change. If this comes up again, it is probably best to raise it at WT:CAT and perhaps tag it as a WP:RFC. – FayenaticLondon 21:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a formal nomination, but rather a pure discussion. No categories have been tagged and no action is to be taken unless this discussion leads to some kind of consensus to proceed further.
I ran into this article which seems to be nothing but categories (not not quite but on the screen it is). So I'm asking do we really find treaties defining for the countries that sign them? I guess in some cases they might be, but in all cases? So should we be categorizing these or listifying the contents. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should listify. Countries involved are not defining to treaties when the number of categories exceed the length of the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The main category tree here is Category:Treaties by country. Treaties have the force of law or even constitutional law and so the treaty category for each country is correctly included in the law category of each country. This could not be done with a list by treaty showing what countries have signed it. We would also need a separate list belonging to each country showing what treaties it has signed. It seems that the category system is the easiest/clearest way to handle this bidirectional information need. There is also no chance of one of the lists getting updated and not the other since categories always provide the two-way connection. Hmains (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are treaties really laws of a country? Aren't they agreements between countries that need some kind of legislative action to actually implement them as a law? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they really are, at least for the majority of countries in history. Many countries have treaty ratification processes that results in the automatic self-implementation of the treaty. The U.S. is an exception to the rule in this regard. Some treaties specify that the require implementing legislation, but most do not. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A similar (although slightly less extreme) situation arises with categorization of wars. E.g. the World War II article is in over 70 "Wars involving <country>" categories, many for countries that aren't mentioned in that particular article. A list might be better in this case, but for treaties/wars involving just 2-3 countries then the countries involved are a defining characteristic. There are also some similarities with Category:Birds of Ukraine etc.
These are an anomaly in categorization (not following WP:DEFINING). In the long term it would be good to avoid this type categorization. I suggest we wait until Wikidata and Wikipedia-Wikidata linkage are more mature and then see if there's a way ahead using lists generated from Wikidata.
I would not be keen on changing WP:DEFINING etc to allow this type of categorization as that might open the door to, for example, "Category:Countries where Pepsi is consumed". DexDor (talk) 05:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Histircally there are two kinds of treaty: a treaty between A & B or between small groups of countries. It is (or should be) useful to have a treaty in the category for A and that for B. I am less sure about international treaties, ususally promoted by UN to which all countries are encouraged to adhere with the treaty being a form of interational law: they have the feel of something like performance categories, which will cause clutter. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep. A treaty being ratified by a country makes that treaty defining vis-a-vis the law of that particular country. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That has categorization backwards though. The country has to be defining to the treaty, not the treaty to the country. We categorize things by what defines them, not by what they define.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit of word game, but the articles being categorized are about treaties, not the countries themselves or their legal systems. If the treaty is defining for the law of the country, I would say that that is an appropriate categorization. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The category Category:Treaties by country has not been tagged for discussion. I realize that this was deliberate, but how else are interested users supposed to be notified of the discussion? I consider myself a user that is interested in this category, and I ran across this discussion by pure accident. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, based on the discussion here, should that category be formally nominated? I'm not sure that at this point deletion would be supported. There is a concern about over categorization on these. Other then having the effect of law in many countries, many of these are not really notable for the country. But when they are in fact law, this is likely notable like any other law. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just think that if a category is nominated—even if it is only for discussion and no formal action is being proposed—it should be tagged as normal. How else will interested users be notified that a discussion about the category is taking place? (I know—this is after the fact and it might be too late to remedy this now, I just mentioned it because I felt it was relevant.) To answer the substantive question—I think categorization is appropriate when a treaty becomes part of the law of the country. We categorize statutes and caselaw of a country into the "FOOian law" trees, and when a country adopts a treaty, it is "law" just as much as these. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:55, 3 March 2014 (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.
Rename There is a discrepancy in NBA categories as to whether they should be "venue" or "arena." I think all of the existing "arenas" should be renamed to "venues" because (1) it's a broader description and allows for more articles to be included (what if a team played an outdoor game somewhere? That'd be a venue, not an arena), and (2) following the category tree, 'Category:National Basketball Association arenas by team' is a child category of 'Category:National Basketball Association venues', which itself is a child category of 'Category:Basketball venues.' There needs to be consistency as you go down a category line, so "venues" would be the consistent nomenclature. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming per sound rationale given in nomination. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If two teams played one featured game on the deck of a battleship does that ship belong in this category?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there is a leak and a team has to play a game or a few games in an alternate venue does that belong in this category?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the answer to both of your comments would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis. The actual changing from arena to venue is still mostly a separate issue though. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename although I would like to have these questions answered. The regular venues should be in a properly named category.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Venues is the standard for these type of categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2014 (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: Thanks to the excellent work in expanding most of the 2014 Winter Olympic articles, this category is now redundant, and any remaining stubs should be merged into the parent cat. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 18:55, 21 February 2014 (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.
Traditional healers, medicine men/medicine women, shamans, etc, are all terms for a broad set of practices around healing practiced around the world and as contrasted with allopathic or western medicine. However, in spite of the broad use of the terms medicine man/medicine woman, those terms have been problematized in the literature and by Native Americans themselves.
We aren't well served by having yet another gendered division of jobs here, especially given that in traditional societies around the world, women have often (and still do) played a key role and indeed have done much work in the traditional healing domain. Thus, per WP:EGRS we should merge, since traditional healing is not an area where women's engagement is special or different than that of men.
This obviously differs widely by society/culture - but in general healing was not a domain women were widely excluded from across the board, nor was their performance in the job significantly different than that of men - for example, in many societies in Africa, women have been the Traditional_birth_attendants/midwives.
Finally, if we keep Category:Medicine women, we would be remiss to not create Category:Medicine men, but again, to what end? Blending these together in a gender neutral cat is much better, IMHO.
One alternative to the broad grouping of Category:Healers is to have a subcat of Category:Indigenous American traditional healers or something similar (here they call it Native American traditional healing), which would capture a vast majority of the articles that we have, and include people from South America and Central American, and then leave the others from Asia/Africa in the head category, or to be dealt with later. Note: We already have Category:Cunning folk, which is more or less the European version of this category.) Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think it's a valid category and it's good to distinguish female ones from male ones. I think feeding it into Indigenous American traditional healers would be a good idea or rename it Category:Female indigenous American traditional healers. Medicine women to me is a common term and simpler.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. No reason to split out be gender here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Categories that are nominated for deletion (yes a merge is a deletion) using a wp:wall of text as rationale should never be deleted. Just my $.02 XOttawahitech (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ottawahitech. Maybe the rationale is a wall of text, or maybe it's a well-argued detailed logical argument. Do you disagree with anything in the rationale? DexDor (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor:: Where is the wiki-guideline behind this "well-argued detailed logical argument"? XOttawahitech (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't need to be a guideline, it is not a wall of text it is the rationale they have provided for this discussion. Stop wiki lawyering. Mrfrobinson (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Refined a little bit to bulletize and describe the guideline-based reason to merge.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Their defining characteristic is their profession not their gender here. Splitting these up into gender actually inhibits navigation since a reader would only be exposed to one gender unless their went to the parent category or searched for Medicine Men. Mrfrobinson (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2014 (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 suffers frmo the same problems several other categories I've recently nominated have; it is a gendered container in a broad-based tree that contains all sorts of jobs, some of which merit a gender-specific category, but many of which don't. for example, one of the largest areas of employment for women in the health sector is in nursing, and accordingly, we don't even have a "women nurses" category - so this "Women in health professions" cat would not include any nurses. This cat isn't needed and needlessly complicates the tree. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question At this point, over the past few months, I must have seen 20-40 "Women" or "Female" categories nominated for deletion. Is the goal to eliminate them entirely? Which ones "merit a gender-specific category" and which ones dont'? I ask this sincerely because I have argued against deletion at least five or six times and I'm wondering if I should just have several cut and paste defenses that I used daily to argue on their behalf. If the goal is to remove all or, say, 50% of "Women" or "Female" categories, why not nominate them all at once so we can have a discussion instead of going one by one by one? Considering some of the ridiculous, one article categories that exist, I don't understand the targeting of gender-specific categories for deletion. I realize that the "X is bad so why focus on Y" is not considered a strong defense on WP but I just am baffled at seeing "Women" categories nominated for deletion so frequently.
And, although this is also not considered a strong argument, users keep creating these categories over and over again. A few editors might vote for deletion at CfD but I am certain that some of these deleted categories will be recreated by other editors (not me) who think they are useful. LizRead!Talk! 00:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that the "women" categories are being nominated for deletion so much because dozens of them are being created by one editor who has, according to his own reckoning, over 1725 deleted edits. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 01:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, I've nominated a number of these. Remember there are over 6000 female specific categories - but this does not mean for every single job and container -class we need a female version. There is no need for a bulk nom because each case is different, but 'useful' is not a good reason to keep a gender split cat. WP:EGRS lays out the basics but we also have several years of case law at CFD that suggests some gendered cats are not needed. I've spend a lot of time cleaning up ghettoization caused by gender cats, and have come to the conclusion that if we want to keep a gendered cat there must be a very strong case for it - otherwise it will become forlorn and abandoned and empty and ghettoizing. This is my observation having looked at hundreds of these cats. You may recall the massive shitstorm caused by a few women being incorrectly diffused into women novelists, multiply that by 6000 and you see the potential size of the problem. Gendered cats are a liability, so unless this is truly an encyclopedic topic and a strong head article could be written on the topic and it's not just 'oh look a woman also did this job therefore let's create a category' it's simply not worth it to split by gender.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment After the nomination of this category, the creator has gone on to create a whole subtree underneath, at Category:Women_in_health_professions_by_nationality. Presumably, if this category is deleted, those below could be speedied, or should we add them all to this nomination?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question to User: Obiwankenobi: I just don’t seem to be able to get it right. When I create skeleton categories you tell me I should focus on filling up existing categories, but now you admonish me for doing exactly that and warning me not to do it again saying it wastes your time . Sorry for being such a simplton, but can you explain this apparent contradiction without using a wp: Wall of text? Also - please notify me when you respond, since I do not normally frequent this part of Wikipedia. Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk)
@Ottawahitech:, filling up a category with articles is totally fine, even if it's nominated for deletion - however it may not be worth going too far, as if the category is deleted your work is wasted. Thus, adding 10 new articles seems reasonable, but adding 100 may not be worth it unless an argument is made that this category can't contain 100 articles for example - if the category is kept those can always be added later. You can even add existing categories underneath of course. OTOH, creating a whole sub-tree, like you just did, that mirrors the exact tree scheme of the category that has just been nominated is disruptive, as if the parent cat is deleted, it's likely the children will need to be nominated as well, but in this case we will have to either speedy them or start another discussion on a different day. So it's much better to hold off on building out a new category tree underneath a cat that has been nominated until the discussion finishes.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for notifying me, Obiwankenobi. XOttawahitech (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Split -- I am not sure that male and female subcategories is useful for most professions. If we are to have this one, it should be a container-only category. I checked 4 or 5 articles: most seemed to be about nurses, often ones who had risen to adminstrate nursing or teach it. I would accordingly like to see the contents split into appropriate sub-cateogories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2014 (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:Merge. Only one entry, which itself seems dismissive about the scope to add more. The member page is already in the other parent category. – FayenaticLondon 15:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Although I have to admit I am not convinced that we need this article at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- They are covering the same scope. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2014 (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: Another unneeded gender split. I know this field and a reasonable majority of people in the International Development are women; as the field is relatively young as well, it didn't have a long historical period where women were excluded. The parent category is tiny in any case, so I see no value in a gender split here. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- An unnecessary gender split: in many professions, there is no gender exclusion. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2014 (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 in food and agriculture occupations[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.
Nominator's rationale: This is far to vague a catch-all parent container category to merit a gender-based division here; women have obviously been deeply involved in food and agriculture occupations since the beginning of time. Better to create gender-splits as necessary and if warranted by sources to the sub-categories of the parent here, as opposed to making this broad-catch-all that is genderized. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for every possible division by gender.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- An unnecessary gender split: in many professions, there is no gender exclusion. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2014 (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: According to this figure, women have made up more than 50% of animal breeders in the US (as a long term average) link. If we look historically, women have been involved in agricultural practices, farming, and animal breeding since the beginning of time. I don't see a need or reason to split them out here, especially given the parent category is rather small, and even in terms of articles about animal breeders we seem to have a fairly even split between men and women. This is another gender-based category that we don't need per WP:EGRS, as it's not clear that women as animal breeders behave in some significantly different fashion, or that women have been excluded from animal breeding in some significant way. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that women in animal breeding is a topic of cultural significance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- An unnecessary gender split: in many professions, there is no gender exclusion. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2014 (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: In 1900, 75% of librarians were women. Thus, for the past 100 years at least, the librarian job has been dominated by women. This is yet another case where we don't need to divide every single job by gender - doing so tends to lead to more ghettoization over time, so we should be pruning the gender cats rather than multiplying them, especially for cases like this one. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With 114+ years of the profession being dominated by women, it makes little sense to split this way. Even if at times the higher levels of the professon (such as university librarians) were often held by men, there is no evidence that people have studied women librarians as a cultural phenomena.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- An unnecessary gender split: in many professions, there is no gender exclusion. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2014 (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: Another top level women-in- container category, that isn't currently used as a container. The Category:People in literature parent is a container, and I don't think it helps navigation to have these sparsely populated non-diffusing cats at the head level - much better is, when warranted, to create sub-categories of the more specific job types. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I was rather expecting to find articles about women in fiction. Oculi (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- An unnecessary gender split: in many professions, there is no gender exclusion. However, I would not oppose the merger suggested by others. Certainly when it comes to writign fiction, women bring a differnet perspective to the subject, due to their gender. I am not sure if that also applies to publishing fiction. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2014 (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 with nautical occupations, sports or hobbies[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.
Nominator's rationale: I can see no reason why women should be singled out here, especially for such a broad-based parent category. If necessary, women-cats could be created for some of the subcats but this broad container is not needed as the result will be a bit of a hodge-podge, and such containers of non-diffusing categories complicate the tree needlessly. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the container is fine when non-gendered, but it doesn't work when gendered. Here is why - by having a gender-neutral container, we aren't saying "These jobs are all related really closely" - we're just grouping them together b/c they have something to do with the water. However, by having a gender+broad water-based container, (1) it needlessly complicates the tree, and (2), it says "There is something special about the way women have worked as pirates and windsurfers that somehow binds them together and is worth grouping on, and this grouping is discussed in RS" - this violates WP:EGRS. It doesn't make any sense. All of these sub-categories are properly classified elsewhere.
Look, if you take this to it's conclusion, you could continue on up the tree, to
But because these cats MUST all be non-diffusing, every single item in each one of these categories HAS to be in all of the parent categories in any case, so it leads to either ghettoization, or needless complication of the tree. I don't think we should go around creating a parallel female tree of occupations including all possible sub-groupings of occupations because the parallel structure creates too many opportunities for ghettoization, and trust me, the tree is still rife with it without new ones being created. It's better to keep the gender-specific cats for cases where there is clear and reliable sourcing around this group as a special group worthy of study (and not just, someone once wrote an article about Women in X), but not to bubble that genderization all the way up the occupations tree or elsewhere.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good points, but IMHO it is useful to be able to navigate between female sailors, yacht racers and windsurfers. This is after all what categories are for. Note, I'm not asking to keep all the cats listed above. – FayenaticLondon 19:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ITSUSEFUL is usually not a great reason to keep a cat, esp if it violates WP:EGRS. Think about it this way - suppose we had a category for "Jewish sailors" and another category for "Jewish pirates" - would you support a category of "Jewish people with nautical occupations, sports, or hobbies" in order to facilitate navigation? I think if we want to facilitate navigation, we should do so through either generic occupation cats (like Category:Women by occupation or Category:People by occupation), but breaking down gender,ethnicity,religion,sexuality into finer and finer nested sub-containers makes a total mess of the tree and makes it much more likely something will be left out - if someone adds a new "women x" category, they have to remember to add it to "X" + "women by occupation" + "women by sub-occupational grouping" - and I see all the time instances in the tree where this didn't happen - it's just too confusing to people. Additionally, what happens when you have a job sub-cat which doesn't merit a separate gendered category? Do you just put the women in this top-level one? Then, poof, it's no longer a container. If not, why not? After all, they have nautical occupations, and they are women. These non-diffusing mid-level container categories cause more problems than they solve. The case I gave above of Category:Women in health professions is similar, since we have no Category:Female nurses, thus nurses (and midwives) would never be in that category - so what's the point of the intermediate gendered container? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mixes too many unlike things. This is not a good idea for gendered categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's better as a container cat, as Fayenatic says. Usefulness is what categories are for, and WP:ITSUSEFUL says that for categories it as a valid argument. I will also admit that I'm not a fan of slippery slope arguments or arguing against the problems inherent in phantom categories that are unlikely to be proposed.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- too wide-ranging to be useful. Some of the subcategories may be useful to have. I think there is a gender split in yachting as a sport. Female pirates will be unusual - most were male. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The defining characteristics of this category are too broad and covers too many possibilities, especially adding hobbies. Any notable woman who enjoys swimming in the ocean would be eligible to be in this category. Mrfrobinson (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is nothing more then an unfocused category. Making it a container category does not resolve that issue. It is also a collection of unrelated things, unless we are attempting to categorize women and water which does not appear to be defining. Finally I have a big problem trying to combine sports and hobbies in a single category. Bottom line there is too many issues to make this worth keeping. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2014 (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.
