Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 25 February 27 >

February 26[edit]

Category:Thomas and Friends[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: rename and leave redirects. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The correct name for the TV series, as used by the article and official publications, uses an ampersand instead of the word 'and'. This categories and the following subcats (Category:Thomas and Friends characters, Category:Thomas and Friends episodes‎, Category:Thomas and Friends images‎, Category:Thomas and Friends locations‎, Category:Thomas and Friends merchandise‎, Category:Video games based on Thomas and Friends‎ and Category:Thomas and Friends videos) should all change the and to an ampersand to reflect this, but as this would be a common misspelling I suggest that the current names be left as redirects. Thank-you. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 22:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the rename It makes sense to adhere to the actual name of the TV series. Peaceray (talk) 06:28, 28 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:People from Benham, Kentucky[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just one entry. ...William 21:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nominator, and per having been to Benham. It's REALLY small. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Without prejudice against recreation if the category grows to a workable size.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 1 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.

Category:Surnames derived from nicknames[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, specifically, this category has existed for over 2 years and only 3 surnames have been added to it. Considering the considerable work done on WP on Onomastics, if there was a clear use for this category, it would be utilized by those editors working on surname pages and categories. Liz Read! Talk! 13:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Unless they are a placename or based on a patronymic, most surnames ultimately originated as nicknames, including my own (King). Peterkingiron (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am not convinced that what is and what is not a nickname is clear enough for this to be a workable category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 1 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.

Category:Candidate of technical Sciences[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Recently-created category of unclear purpose (just what is a "Candidate of technical Sciences"?). The lack of a sensible parent category does not help to determine its purpose, although the pages in this cat seem to be mostly Russian people. If kept, it could do with proper placement in the cat tree - it has no parent cat (other than itself) and its only sub-cat is itself. Redrose64 (talk) 12:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- All the members seem to be Russian (or at least ex-Soviet). I susopect that this is a translation of a Russian term, possibly an inappropriate one - student, apprentice, trainee - perhaps. I cannot help more as I do not know Russian. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The relevant article is Candidate of Sciences; it seems, from what I can tell, to just mean that the people in the category hold post-graduate degrees. We don't have comparable categories for "People with Master's degrees" or "People with Ph.D.'s" — that type of categorization would be effectively unmaintanable — and this type of degree isn't more defining of its holders than those are. It's just a different term, not a fundamentally different thing. Delete as WP:OCAT. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per remarks above. Cgingold (talk) 01:13, 4 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.

Category:Starting place 41 ( Baikonur)[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The presence of a space after the opening parenthesis of this recently-created category is clearly against the normal naming conventions, and I think that the word "Cosmodrome" would give additional context. I also feel that other matters about this category deserve consideration: for example, is it actually necessary? We don't seem to have any other cats devoted to single launch sites, not even Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39 where most of the Apollo and all of the Space Shuttle launches occurred. If kept, it could do with proper placement in the cat tree - it has no parent cat (other than itself) and its only sub-cat is itself. Redrose64 (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've moved this category under an appropriate category. Delete/upmerge or rename to match the article at Baikonur Cosmodrome Site 41. DexDor (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete it, there's not really enough scope here to justify a category. --W. D. Graham 13:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/upmerge or rename per DexDor; cannot stay as is, looks like a joke. Quis separabit? 13:54, 8 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.

Category:Historical geology of the Great Lakes[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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is slightly misnamed. There is a good deal of confusion regarding two higher-level categories, Category:Historical geology and Category:Geological history of Earth (which is understandable). I am in the process of properly sorting out their contents, and just moved this category into the correct parent cat, Category:Geological history of Earth. The proposed name is thus in line with that category. (Notified Category creator using {{cfd-notify}}) Cgingold (talk) 04:08, 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:Bplus-Class Statistics articles[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 has remained empty). Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: B+ is not even a category on the WikiProject Statistics portal, and redundant. Not sure why it's still here. Sda030 (talk) 03:26, 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:Dam failures and sub-cats[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: rename; there also seems to be support for the kind of post-rename clean-up proposed by User:Delirium. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I essentially would like to change "disaster" to "failure" in the above categories. Many dams fail, only some are disasters. The others results in evacuations and unsubstantial property loss. I wanted to create Category:Dam failures but felt it would clash with Category:Dam disasters. Other articles can be included in the renamed category and readers can research dam failures better. The parent category is Category:Engineering failures as well. Also, and probably most important, "disaster" can be ambiguous and "failure" is the proper engineering term for when a dam or a supporting structure of it loses its integrity and it fails. Already on the dam failure article we have trouble filtering disasters from failures at the list towards the bottom.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as is; create parent categories as needed. Category:Dam disasters in the United States has as one its parent categories Category:Disasters in the United States This was missing from Category:Dam disasters so I just now added its proper parent Category:Disasters. Certainly these were disasters: people died; property destroyed. The best way to handle this is to create failure categories and make these disaster categories children of them as well as continue to be children of their disaster parents. The failure categories would also directly include dam failures that were not disasters. There would be no duplication. Hmains (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually this ignores the fact that dam disasters is in some sense ambiguous. Are you talking about disasters that are caused by building, creating and filing a dam or by disasters that are caused by a dam failure? While we may find the later more reported on as a news item, the former is just as notable albeit less reported. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the rename. I don't entirely object to Hmains's proposed solution, but it seems like more multiplication of categories than I think is useful. My preferred solution would be to rename "Dam disasters" to "Dam failures", and then separately, for those failures which also produced disasters, add the event to the appropriate "Disasters in [location]" category, rather than creating a separate category-intersection category for disasters caused by dam failures. --Delirium (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, and agree with Delirium. Rehman 15:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose Renaming - I am inclined to support Hmains' counter-proposal, if there is in fact a real need for a new set of categories for "dam failures". If I had more time I would look at the articles myself to ascertain how many actual articles there are about dam failures that were not also "disasters". Can the nominator please enlighten me as to that issue? If there are enough to warrant a new set of categories, they should be created and can serve as parents to these categories. In any event, I do not want to eliminate the word "disasters" from the existing categories. Cgingold (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • What sparked my interest in renaming was Tokwe Mukorsi Dam. The dam had a downstream slope failure which is currently being repaired. The whole of the reservoir did not flood downstream and folks had to be evacuated upstream from the rising waters of the new reservoir. What caused the failure is not clear now but I would not consider it a disaster. No reported deaths. Not every dam failure results in the whole reservoir gushing downstream. Wadi Qattara Dam, Opuha Dam, Campos Novos Dam and other dams listed here, particularly those with no casualties, do not potentially meet the disaster threshold but were failures.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your very helpful reply. I just took the time to look at each of the 4 articles you listed, and it's clear that they are all completely mis-categorized and should be removed from Category:Dam disasters as soon as we are done here. But please note that while the failures were given brief mention, not one of those articles was entirely or largely devoted to that issue. In other words, those failures apparently/probably were not of great enough significance to warrant any sort of categorization -- precisely because they did not result in catastrophic loss of the dam and/or cause the kind of downstream disasters that presumably resulted from the failures of the other dams listed in this category. In short, I think all that is really needed here is a bit of cleanup, the sort of thing that is done routinely with all kinds of categories. If you and other editors feel that there is a strong reason to have a category for "dam failures" (as distinct from disasters) you are, of course, free to create that category. But there is no compelling reason to eliminate the existing categories, which serve the entirely valid purpose of identifying -- as do other subcats of Category:Disasters -- the particular type of disaster. Cgingold (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with Delirium's follow on cleanup. In the future if we really see a need to break out mechanical or engineering failure caused disasters, then we can do so. But the category name should reflect this like Category:Disasters caused by design errors or some such. In the mean time, going into the disasters by location categories are ample. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • cmt a few mis-categorized articles does not change the fact that most of the articles here are about 'dam disasters', life and property destroyed from a dam failure of some kind or another, and should be categorized as such in the Category:Disasters category tree (and not just by disaster location or date). The few articles that are not disasters need to be put into parent categories named 'dam failures'. Everything gets properly taken care of in this way. Hmains (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, and put any true disasters into one or more separate disaster categories. Not all dam failures are disasters; for example, the Great Flood of 1913 caused numerous small dams to fail along the Ohio and Erie Canal, but they really weren't disasters because they didn't affect much of anything other than the (already moribund) canal, and because people were already suffering far more from the flood's other effects. I quote from Commons:COM:CAT:

    Pages (including category pages) are categorized according to their subject, and not to their contents, because the contents are generally not a permanent feature of the category page; in particular, you can momentarily find inappropriate contents in a category page. Example: Assume that Category:Spheres contains only pictures of crystal balls. You must not add Category:Glass in the category page, according to the current contents, because you can have spheres made with a great variety of materials. Normally, any picture showing a glass object would be already categorized in Category:Glass (or in a category of its substructure). So, if the Category:Spheres is really crowded with crystal balls pictures, it would be a better idea to create a new category page, like Category:Glass spheres or Category:Crystal balls, categorized in Category:Spheres and Category:Glass.

    I'm pretty sure that we have such a basic provision in our categorisation standards, and if we don't, it's because it's so obviously applicable. Nyttend (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Reading many the articles finds deaths from dozens to hundreds of thousands and/or widespread destruction of property. By any measure, these were disasters caused in one way or another by dams and there is no reason to delete the Category:Dam disasters that properly and readily groups them together with a name that properly identifies them for what they are. Hmains (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The more focused name and focus of the category helps everyone in not being surprised by what they find.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 29 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.

Category:Radio stations licensed in Chilliwack[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. A user has contested the speedy deletion and the user opposed. That category is supposed to be deleted and was replaced into a category titled Category:Radio stations in Chilliwack from parent category Category:Radio stations in British Columbia. There's no need to include the word "licensed" in the category. That category must be deleted in favour of Category:Radio stations in Chilliwack. Steam5 (talk) 02:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Radio stations in Chilliwack per nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the correctly-named category has already been created and all of the articles moved over to it, this is now an empty category and can be speedied — this could also have gone to cfr-speedy as a C2C in the first place instead of here, but that's a moot point now. Bearcat (talk) 00:00, 27 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:Members of the Presidential Commission of the Russian Federation to Counter Attempts to Falsify History to the Detriment of Russia's Interests[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: "I have decided, after considering all of the viewpoints expressed below, that the consensus in this particular instance lies with the discontinuance or deletion of the category, so I will be taking the necessary step to effectuate that action". Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We generally do not categorize by membership in minor governmental bodies. This commission was not of sufficient importance to warrant such categorization; moreover, it only existed for a few years. (Category creator not notified: ceased editing in 2012.) Cgingold (talk) 01:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete but this should win an award for the longest category name I've ever see . What a fantastic name for a committee!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! That was why it caught my eye in the first place. This one should be retired to the Category Hall of Fame. :) Cgingold (talk) 04:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Obi-Wan — that's just crazy fabulous. And so classically Russian. That said, as noted this doesn't seem to have been a major enough body to actually warrant categorization as such — and since we already have an article on it which already lists the participants anyway, it's not like we're somehow losing the information. Is it possible for a category name to be so long that it singlehandedly violates category bloat even without siblings? Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- According to the article, the commission was abolished a fortnight ago. The people categorised are listed in the article (with a few others, who apparently do not have an article). I consider that this fulfils no useful fucntion. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These people are notable for other things, and were put on the commission because they were already notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, simply because it's a small organisation, so membership won't be particularly sigifnicant. And on the silly names, see the Ministry of Medium Machine Building and the Ministry of General Machine Building (why did they need separate ministries for building different kinds of machines?), which existed even though the Ministry of Light Machine Building apparently didn't. Nyttend (talk) 04:42, 4 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.

Category:Fictional pathogens[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: administrative close: the categories were never tagged with Template:Cfr, which may explain the low levels of participation. If any users wish to pursue the proposals, please start a new nomination by following the procedures at WP:CFD#HOWTO. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A suggestion on expanding fictional sickness-related categories while reducing redundancy. Pathogens seems to be the more correct term, but diseases has more common usage --173.51.221.24 (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • PLEASE NOTE: Any discussion here is moot until these categories have been properly noticed for renaming by the nominator. Please post the CFR template on each page using {{subst:cfr|PROP0SED RENAME}} . (And of course, the category creator/s should be notified using {{cfd-notify}}.) PS - You seem to be a serious editor, why not register and create a user account? Regards, Cgingold (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Category:Fictional bacteria and viruses ; instead suggest Category:Fictional microbes -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Is a virus a microbe? We certainly need some categories in this area, but not necessarily so many. ~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.

Category:Hispanic and Latino American female journalists[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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Another example of a last-rung category that ghettoizes (and it's a triple intersection to boot). Very few of the contents are in the parent journalists category, leaving the impression that these women are a special type of journalist. Better to eliminate this triple intersection of gender + ethnicity + job and upmerge to all 3 parents. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, although the statement that this is a triple intersection is technically true, I assert that we are really looking at the intersection between two valid categories. By nationality and occupation section of WP:Categorization of people states that "People are usually categorized by their nationality and occupation, ..." As per the Ethnicity and race section of WP:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, the Hispanic ethnicity is part of the List of modern ethnic groups for the United States. Therefore, we should be concerned at to whether Category:Hispanic and Latino American female journalists is a valid intersecting subcategory of Category:Hispanic and Latino American journalists & Category:Hispanic and Latino American women.
Next, let us examine these guidelines
  • Narrow intersection indicates that "In general, intersection categories should only be created when both parent categories are very large and similar intersections can be made for related categories." Ah, here is the crux of the matter. In this particular case, Category:Hispanic and Latino American journalists has 17 pages & 2 subcategories. However, Category:Hispanic and Latino American women has 11 subcategories that, as of this writing, have a total of 238 pages & an additional 11 sub-subcategories. Further more, it has the {{catdiffuse}} template that states "Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable."
In summary, Category:Hispanic and Latino American female journalists is justified because:
  1. As per WP:OC#SMALL, it has a sufficient number of members.
  2. As per WP:OC#EGRS, it has a head article.
  3. As per WP:OC#NARROW, Category:Hispanic and Latino American women would be overburdened by the members that would be added with the elimination of its subcategories. Furthermore, it is tagged with the {{catdiffuse}} template that states "Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable."
Peaceray (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
triple intersection = Hispanic/Latino + female + journalist. More importantly this violates the last rung rule - there aren't any diffusing siblings of this category and it would this tend to ghettoized- indeed the proof is before you most contents are fully ghettoized in at least two directions. We don't as a rule do triple intersections because the number of possible combinations is too great and it leads to category clutter. Moreover triple intersections are very hard to deghettoize, as each article must be in all three binary parents and then several singleton parents. One can write articles and even phd theses about lesbian Chinese poets from queens of mongian descent but the existence of such triple and quadruple intersections is not sufficient in my mind to justify such categories and if we allow them to proliferate the result will be a mess. The tag on Hispanic/Latino women can be removed, obviously - in such cases we shouldn't force diffusion because almost any subcat of that one would be a triple intersection, and would in most cases violate the last rung rule.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I knew exactly what you meant by triple intersection. I just reject that argument on the basis of the WP:Categorization of people#By nationality and occupation & WP:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality & assert that what is at issue here is whether Category:Hispanic and Latino American female journalists is a valid intersecting subcategory of Category:Hispanic and Latino American journalists & Category:Hispanic and Latino American women. I have quoted WP:OC#SMALL, WP:OC#EGRS, & WP:OC#NARROW to argue that it is. Where are the guidelines for "deghettoization"? Would you please post the Wikilinks for them? Based on my librarian & IT/database experience, I believe it is important to make information accessible to users. I do not believe that over-generalization serves this purpose. And, yes, I do believe that there are people are looking for Hispanic and Latino American female journalists & that most Wikipedia users are capable & savvy enough to drill down through Category:Hispanic and Latino American journalists & Category:Hispanic and Latino American women to find the subcategories. However, if you take away Category:Hispanic and Latino American female journalists, there is no easy way to find the journalists from Category:Hispanic and Latino American women or sometimes even the women (not everyone is familiar with Spanish names!) from Category:Hispanic and Latino American journalists. Peaceray (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "valid intersecting subcategory" - clearly we can always create such intersections, and in many cases it's possible someone has written an article or paper about such a triple intersection. But we tend to avoid them nonetheless BECAUSE they tend to ghettoize - again this category being a classic case in point with 100% ghettoization, probably by gender AND ethnicity. The rules around ghettoization are in WP:EGRS, which is in need of updating, but the basic concept is, you should never be in a gendered/ethnic category if you're not in a non-gendered/non-ethnic equivalent - which should in most cases be a diffusing sibling. In the case of an intersection like "Hispanic/Latino Woman journalist", you need to put everyone in this category in "Hispanic/Latino Journalist" and "Woman journalist" and "American journalist". Thus, the category is fairly useless because EVERYONE in this category MUST BE in all the parents. I've proposed an algorithm for deghettoization here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_bias_task_force#List_of_categories_that_need_to_be_de-ghettoized that helps explain some of the complexities in deghettoizing properly, and if you're interested in a longer-form treatment I've written it up here, on the complexities of ghettoization and the trickiness in doing it right: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_132#On_structural_and_categorical_sexism. The rest of your argument amounts to "It's useful to be able to look at this particular intersection", but that is a minimal bar, and is not sufficient for a triple intersection category. We have deleted a great many categories that were useful, but they nonetheless violated our guidelines - the guidelines exist because useful is the minimal requirement for a category to exist, but for an ethnic non-diffusing cat, or an ethnic + gender + job cat to exist, the bar is a lot higher - and if it violates the last rung rule (as this one does, in two separate trees) that's my signal that it has to go.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By "valid intersecting subcategory", I am trying to indicate that the crux of the matter is whether not the Category:Hispanic and Latino American female journalists "is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest, though it does not need to be balanced directly against" a similar male category, as per WP:Cat gender. As I wrote in the 2011 July 27 discussion, "Hispanic and Latino American women in journalism addresses some unique issues regarding that intersection, especially considering the history of machismo and its effect upon women professionals in the culture and the response of women to it." I have noted how it is supported by the guidelines of WP:OC#SMALL (sufficient # of members), WP:OC#EGRS (has a head article), & WP:OC#NARROW (tagged with {{catdiffuse}} to avoid overburdening by subcategory members). You have cited the User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 132#On structural and categorical sexism, largely written by yourself, & Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender bias task force#List of categories that need to be de-ghettoized. While I understand those arguments & admire your efforts, nevertheless, they are, respectively, your reasoning & the goals of a WikiProject, but they are not guidelines. You state that WP:EGRS is in need of updating. I agree. Please do not put the cart before the horse. Ensconce the principle of deghettoization by revising WP:EGRS first, & I will support that new version of the guideline. Right now however, I believe that Category:Hispanic and Latino American female journalists in accordance with the guidelines as currently written. Peaceray (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
no, because it violates last rung rule - that's in the guidelines and that has been upheld on numerous occasions. If it wasn't for the last rung violation I might let this triple intersect pass, but since it's such a blatant violation AND since it has been ghettoizing since day 1, this cat isn't workable.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To make things easier, please use WikiLinks to point to the section(s) you are talking about & use the same phrasing that is used in the guidelines - it's "final rung", not "last rung".
That "final rung" is found in the other considerations section of WP:OC#EGRS. It is the last part of the last section of WP:OC#EGRS. This hardly seems to be the Prime Directive of categorization regarding gender. Guidelines in Wikipedia are to be taken together, & as I have stated above, there are other aspects of the guidlines that, at least to my reading, support the existance of Category:Hispanic and Latino American female journalists.
Right now, "ghettoization" & the "final rung" rank as an afterthought, once editors have considered other aspects of the guidelines. If you would have "deghettoization" & the "final rung" apply as you argue, first revise Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality to make it stand out as a primary concern & important consideration. Then the new version of the guideline will prevail.
Make it so.
Peaceray (talk) 03:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previous discussion of Category:Hispanic and Latino American female journalists: There was a previous discussion about this category, now archived at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 27#Category:Hispanic and Latino American female journalists. The result of the discussion was: No consensus. Peaceray (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was before April of 2013 when we realized that we really should start following our own rules against splitting categories by gender (and maybe also by ethnicity) in ways that presented certain genders or ethnicities as the "norm", while others were made the exception. The previous discussion just focused on the cultural topic in its own right issue, which was not even decided, without considering the last rung issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge but not to Category:Hispanic and Latino American women, that is a container category and is not to have any direct contents. However, since female journalistis are not subdivided by non-ethnic cateogries, they should not be subdivided by ethnic categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The tag of the Hispanic and Latino women category was deliberately put there. I participated in the discussion that led to it. The reasoning was that we should not be splitting members of ethnic groups by gender, unless they were in specific occupations that justified splitting by gender. We deliberately made the decision that it was better to have much fewer people split out by gender than more. This is also the result of the rules about the nationality by gender categories, since the majority of gender specific occupation categories are not split by nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created the header page and the category to recognize Hispanic and Latin women, and so it would be easier for people to research women in this field. Henriettapussycat1 (talk) 22:27, 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.

Category:Hispanic and Latino American women in television[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Hispanic and Latino American people in television. It does appear that Category:Hispanic and Latino American women is a container category only and is not intended to house articles. If users disagree on this point, they can manually add the articles to Category:Hispanic and Latino American women since there are not that many. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Classic example of why the last -rung rule exists. You'll notice that NONE of the contents of this category are in the parent, which isn't otherwise diffusable in any case, so this gendered category should not exist. Part of me thinks the parent should be deleted as well, but that's a discussion for another day. Upmerge to both parents, loses no information and eliminates ghettoization possibilities in a single stroke. this is also a triple intersection of gender + ethnicity + job, another reason to delete per WP:OCAT. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question which category are you suggesting merging "Hispanic and Latino American women in television" to? The way it was phrased is somewhat confusing. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
both parents. Technically all of these should also be in American people in television or a diffusing subcat thereof to avoid ghettoization by gender or ethnicity but a double upmerge is the first step.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:39, 28 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:Indigenous women[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All of the current contents of this category can be better categorized in the specific indigenous population from which they come. I see little value in collecting a broad sweep of 'indigenous' women from the four corners of the globe into one category here. No need for a merge as all contents are otherwise categorized. The parent category behaves effectively as a container, unlike how this category is being used, so it doesn't make sense to group disparate women together in a cat if we're not grouping disparate non-gender-specific people in the parent. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Distribute contents then delete -- The contents are very disparate. We might in theory have this as a container category, but it is better not. I am an indigenous Englishman. Should I be categorised as an indigenous man? Peterkingiron (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not; I don't know your ethnic background, but if you have seen a British census form or equal opportunities form, you may have noticed a box which is marked "white British" - if you have ticked that, you're probably a mixture of Angle, Celt, Dane, French, Roman and Saxon. There are no true indigenous Englishmen, since the very word "English" is from the Angles, a tribe who came from what is now southern Denmark/northern Germany and drove the native Britons west and north. There are still indigenous Britons, mostly in Cornwall, Ireland, Scotland and Wales; but over the last few centuries, many have interbred with the invading English. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Indigenous" is highly subjective and often unverifiable. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think we are at odds, but your facts are dubious: DNA and other research suggests that a large proportion of the inhabitants of England are descended from those who were here in the Iron Age and long before. The Anglo-Saxon invasions probably mainly consisted in imposing a new aristocracy on peasants who continued much as before. Few historians or archaeologists now believe that there was a wholsale replacement of the population in the so-called Dark Ages. However none of that takes the presernt issue anywhere. We both object to "indigenous". We differ on how to deal with the present contents of the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:28, 28 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_26&oldid=1138399306"