Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 1 January 3 >

January 2[edit]

Category:Childhood genital surgery[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: close as merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article Rathfelder (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2018 (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:Masonic Lodges[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 15#Category:Masonic Lodges. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Some of the articles in the category are for masonic lodges, that is, the local organizational level of the masons. Others are for buildings, all of which appear to be NRHP designations. These need to be split, as they are not the same thing. All of the Prince Hall examples are for buildings, so that subcat would be moved over entire to the building category tree. I am open to the notion of omitting reference to the NRHP in the building categorization. Mangoe (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note... we already have Category:Masonic buildings... would the requested new NRHP cat be duplicative? Or is the new NRHP cat intended as a sub-cat under the broader “Masonic buildings” cat? Blueboar (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm.... maybe the solution is to move the lodge buildings into the existing masonic build categories. Mangoe (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me... although, looking through the articles in question, it seems that a lot of them are ALREADY in one of the “Masonic buildings” cats... A lot of these are also stubs, and there may be uncertainty as to what the article is really about (Lodge, building or both). Most Masonic Lodges are not that notable in themselves... so when in doubt, I would opt for removing the “Lodge” cat where the article is primarily about the building (note... in a few cases, the Lodge no longer even meets in the building, having moved or faded from existence) Blueboar (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need to distinguish between a lodge as an organization vs. lodge as a building. Note it is not wrong to say Smithtown Masonic Lodge meaning either, because that is often the actual common usage. This is like articles on churches, where we want one article on the church as an organization and its past and current buildings. We don't want to limit the articles or to push for splits of articles. It is not helpful for continuing development if editors go around and start removing "Masonic lodge" as category on articles that are currently mostly written about the building. --Doncram (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2018 (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:DJ Mag templates[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Apparent WP:SMALLCAT. —swpbT go beyond 17:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Creators reply No objection to deletion.--Navops47 (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2018 (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.

Chinese diplomats by province[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. I ran a check at https://petscan.wmflabs.org/ and found five that had been moved into these categories from Category:Chinese diplomats, but were not in sub-cats of Category:Ambassadors of China; I moved two into specific ambassador categories, and will restore the other 3 pages to Category:Chinese diplomats. – Fayenatic London 10:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an intersection of occupation and province. It would be a more useful grouping if opned up to all diplomats, rather than restricted to those of highest diplomatic rank.
Also, the title "Ambassadors from ProvinceName" can be misread as "Ambassadors of ProvinceName", implying that Shaanxi‎ or Guangdong‎ or wherever is opening embassies elsewhere
(Note that the parent Category:Chinese diplomats by province was created by me a few minutes ago. If the consensus is to keep the current titles, closer please rename it to match.) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • Maybe delete. On second thoughts, these are all irrelevant intersections of occupation and location. Diplomats are either posted abroad or work in the national capital. The province they were originally from has nothing to do with their diplomatic careers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I believed that without geographical diffusion, the parent category was getting too large. I have no opinion as to whether they should be renamed if kept. --Nlu (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think these by-province cats are best deleted, since they are not needed for diffusion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming but Oppose deletion. diffusion by location is standard practice for large occupation categories, and diplomats categories are needed for the numerous notable people with diplomatic careers that are lower than ambassador level. -Zanhe (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Zanhe: these categories do not diffuse Category:Chinese diplomats. All the articles currently in these categories have been diffused to Category:Ambassadors of China, so these cats just add clutter to the articles. Category:Chinese diplomats directly contains only 28 pages, so diffusion is needed.
      And per WP:OCLOCATION, "avoid subcategorizing subjects by geographical boundary if that boundary does not have any relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics. For example, quarterbacks' careers are not defined by the specific state that they once lived in (unless they played for a team within that state).". The career of a diplomat is defined by the diplomatic roles they undertook, not by which state they came from. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BHG, as trivial intersections by location. Subnational provincial boundaries have no bearing on ambassadorships, which are national-level postings. Diffusion does not have to be by location, and in this is achieved more effectively through Category:Ambassadors of China. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2018 (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:2018 Gujarati films[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. No need to merge, the articles are already in the appropriate merge targets. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No other Category:Gujarati-language films are thus far categorized by year; by-decade might make sense. —swpbT go beyond 17:14, 2 January 2018 (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:Road vehicles by country[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 Category:Road vehicles in Singapore to Category:Vehicles of Singapore and Category:Road transport in Singapore;
Category:Road vehicles by country to Category:Vehicles by country. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Move Category:Taxicabs by country to Category:Vehicles by country or Cars by country, and consider deleting Category:Road vehicles in Singapore later. --Vossanova o< 17:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vossanova: The two subcategories weren't tagged for CfD yet, I have done that now. More importantly, the proposal lacks a rationale, could you please explain why you think these proposed changes are useful? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]
I'm okay with merging Category:Road vehicles by country to Category:Vehicles by country, and Category:Road vehicles in Singapore to Category:Road transport in Singapore and Category:Vehicles of Singapore. But I believe Category:Taxicabs by country has too many subcategories and pages to consider merging it. It provides the same value as, say, Category:Buses by country or Category:Trucks by country. --Vossanova o< 20:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Road vehicles currently comprises any road-going vehicle that is not a motor vehicle (see Category:Motor vehicles). I don't think they're mutually exclusive and I'll discuss it with the Automobiles or Transport wikiproject later, but for now, since Category:Road vehicles by country includes some motor vehicles (e.g. taxicabs), it shouldn't be merged into Category:Road vehicles. --Vossanova o< 20:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary of this discussion:
merge Category:Road vehicles by country to Category:Vehicles by country
merge Category:Road vehicles in Singapore to Category:Road transport in Singapore and Category:Vehicles of Singapore
per Vossanova's edit of 20:09, 2 January. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support that. While the target also has ships in it, they are essentially the same. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2018 (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:Wikipedians who like SiIvaGunner[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow scope per WP:USERCAT; only one member. —swpbT go beyond 16:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete creator, userbox creator, and only member is the primary contributor to the draft Draft:SiIvaGunner. I feel like the category and other stuff were created solely to promote the YouTube channel. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  17:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2018 (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:Rocket launches in fiction[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Almost certainly WP:NON-DEFINING. —swpbT go beyond 16:11, 2 January 2018 (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:Hwangmok clan[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous cat with only the eponymous topic as a member. —swpbT go beyond 16:07, 2 January 2018 (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:Mangjeol[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous cat with only the eponymous topic as a member. —swpbT go beyond 16:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:National Basketball Association music[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining. None of these songs were written specifically for the NBA, they just happen to feature in the coverage. --woodensuperman 14:38, 2 January 2018 (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.

Monasteries dissolved[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 all. – Fayenatic London 12:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: to use the more NPOV term "dissolved", per the head article Dissolution of the Monasteries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support To match the article Dissolution of the Monasteries. Dimadick (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Suppressed" is a more accurate description of what happened. It was done to the monasteries. "Dissolved" would be accurate if the initiative came from the abbots/monks themselves; this did not happen. they were "dissolved" against their will, albeit with a fig-leaf of legislative cover in some cases. I see no point in introducing WP:Weasel words to avoid unpalatable political realities. The point of the discussion at "Dissolution of the Monasteries" was that it was a unique event; while I disputed that interpretation, I'm prepared to abide by the outcome. It cannot therefore have wider international applicability or precedent-setting power. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I saw one of these categs on an article, examined the parent and sibling cats, and and nominated the from there. I was unaware of a discussion at "Dissolution of the Monasteries" until you mentioned it, and just found Talk:Dissolution of the Monasteries#Remquested_move_3_December_2017. That turns out to be a move proposed by you, which was overwhelmingly rejected.
I now see that many of the categories listed here were created by you just before you made the RM. In that RM, you cited Category:Monasteries suppressed under the Icelandic Reformation‎ and Category:Monasteries suppressed under the Irish Reformation‎ as precedents to support your proposal ... but you failed to declare that you were the creator. Naughty.
Now, having failed in your RM proposal, you say that you are prepared to prepared to abide by the outcome ... but you still oppose making these categs consistent with the outcome.
Worse still, you have posted here a blatantly POV/OR justification for your chosen terminology. One editor's inductive reasoning is absolutely not how topics are named on en.wp. We follow the names used in reliable sources, not the POV of an editor who apparently has an axe to grind, and who sneakily fails to declare that the precedents they cite were freshly-made for the purpose. The category system is not a soapbox. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Civility can the nom tone down the shock-horror pageantry please? The proposal is not demonstrably more NPOV than the current state and is arguably more weaselly. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing uncivil in what I wrote above. If you disagree, you know where ANI is, but beware of flying objects.
Your interpretation of NPOV is, umm, creative. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative for Category:Monasteries closed by the Protestant Reformation‎ to Category:Monasteries suppressed under the Protestant Reformation‎. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Despite the parent category's title "Monasteries suppressed in the 16th century", it is not part of any wider set of "Monasteries suppressed by century" categories.
I just checked a the first 5 articles in each categ, to see whether they used "dissolved" or "suppressed" or some other term. Here's the following results:
32 article sampled in 9 categs
I count that as 18 uses of "dissolution"/"dissolved", vs 5 uses of "suppressed"/"suppression". So the neutral term "dissolution" is clearly supported by the articles.
In particular, note that even if we exclude England +Ireland, "dissolution"/"dissolved" is used in 13 of 20 articles sampled. It is therefore wrong for Laurel Lodged to claim that "dissolution" is a term applied only to the actions of Henry VIII. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Scottish category was created by @Daniel the Monk:. That was my template for the Icelandic and Irish categories. Nothing naughty at all. Just following a precedent. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I must stress, however: English is not my native language, and I do not have the capacity to tell whether "dissolved" or "suppressed" is the most neutral wording. I did wonder of "suppressed" was neutral, but I simply trusted that the already existing category was neutral, and I may have made a mistake.
I have noted that the article "Suppression of monasteries" lacked in neutral wording, and I adjusted the text in the part about Sweden there myself. Perhaps that article should also be renamed.
If "suppressed" is in fact not neutral, or can at least be questioned, then I support a change in name for the categories, whether it be "dissolved" or simply "closed". The last one can, I think, not be questioned, as it states a neutral fact. Neutrality is important to me, particularly when it involves religion. :Category:Monasteries suppressed in the 16th century do not seem necessary.
In any case: I feel embarrassed If I have, unknowingly, supported a non-neutral category by developing it, because of my lack in English language. I support the most neutral wording, and my vote is on whichever of these words are deemed as most neutral. Regards, --Aciram (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- The appropriate word is a matter of opinion, but the accepted term used by English historians is "dissolved". In a few cases (such as Glastonbury) the event was violent so that "suppressed" might be appropriate, but generally it was not. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support disolved is the clear standard common usage in this case. The fact that there is clear POV-pushing involved in attempted to keep the current name suggests more strongly that we should rename the categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2018 (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:Female diplomats[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. – Fayenatic London 12:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: I remember a similar and successful CFD a while back where the nom stated that Women > Female because "women" is more respectful. I believe the same applies here.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "Female" is fine for biological usage, but these categs are about women doing a job, not "female people". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also would @Mr. Guye mind if I added to this nomination Category:Ghanaian female diplomats and Category:Indian female diplomats, which are the only 2 "female" subcats of Category:Women diplomats by nationality? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree that "female" is a more scientific term. "Women" would be appropriate when used in society topics. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for the reasons given above and to bring in like with such categories as Category:Women ambassadors. Grutness...wha? 01:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename my main argument is that women is the best term for adult female people. My secondary reason is the targets sound much better.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for what it is worth someone is trying to argue the opposite move for Category:French women judges.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Female is in no way disrespectful. It is the usual adjective associated with women in everyday speech (as opposed to "women", which is not an adjective but a noun). In what possible way is it disrespectful? Would we say "men diplomats"? No, clearly we would say "male diplomats". Which is also not disrespectful in the slightest. Also, many categories use "female". -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Necrothesp: reliable sources disagree with you. See the scholarly works indexed on JSTOR: 31 hits for "women diplomats" vs 21 hits for "women diplomats". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hardly a great disparity! Not really that reliable. And not addressing my comments about the ridiculous statement that "women is more respectful". Why is it? I have no problem with being referred to as male (or indeed a male archivist, which is what I do for a living); I can see no reason why a woman would have a problem with being referred to as female. In fact, I would find it more patronising to refer to someone as a "woman whatever". That's actually old-fashioned usage that suggests there was somehow a difference between a woman doing the job and a man (e.g. the term "woman police constable" was phased out in Britain many years ago; now we just call them "female officers" if it's necessary to make a distinction at all, such as a call for a female officer to search a female suspect). -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • What fun Necrothesp. You make an unevidenced assertion that "women diplomats" is not used at all. I respond with reliable sources to show that "women" is actually more widely used ... and you come back by saying that a mere 60% preponderance makes the academic papers "not really that reliable".
          This is a decidedly novel approach to the notion of a reliable source. Maybe you can let us know when you have established a consensus to change WP:RS to reflect your notion of a source which gives the answer you want, and to that an unevidenced assertion of zero usage can be disproven only by scholarly sources which show a preponderance of usage greater than a mere 60%. Good luck with that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • @BrownHairedGirl: Please point me to the bit where I said that "women diplomats" is not used at all! I said "women" wasn't an adjective and that "female" was the common adjective. Not sure how you extrapolated your assertion of what I said from that. No, I said that internet searches are not that reliable. You're an experienced Wikipedia editor. You know as well as I do that internet searches like this are not the be all and end all of evidence. A 60-40 split for a single search on a single type of source is hardly conclusive enough for renaming. I also said that I'm puzzled why an old-fashioned usage that has been officially phased out by some organisations would be seen as more respectful than the term that organisations commonly use today. Still waiting for an explanation of that daft assertion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Necrothesp, please re-read what you wrote in your initial comment. Maybe you wrote something difft to what you intended. And note that my evidence is not an internet search. It's a search of scholarly papers rather than blogs or tabloid news.
I look fwd to you posting actual evidence rather than mere assertions of your own personal impressions.
I guess that the issue here is that you are confusing the organisational abandonment of sexist job titles (such as the former English title "Woman Police Constable") with the task at hand here, which is descriptive usages when specifically identifying the gender of someone in an occupation. Our purpose here is akin to running text, rather than job title.
Take the case of Margaret Thatcher. Her job title was "thatcher "Prime Minister", but how is she referred to in reliable sources?
It's the same pattern. Whether we search only reliable sources (JSTOR & Gscholar) or broaden the scope to all Gbooks (some of which may not be very RS), we see the same two things:
  1. "Woman" is commonly used as an adjective, contrary to Necrothesp's assertion
  2. "Woman <fooer>" is more widely used than "Female <fooer>" in every search type, by varying margins.
The margins of up to 2:1 may arguably not be big enough to justify renaming a whole category. But what we are actually doing here is bringing 3 outliers into conformance with their children and parents: Category:Female diplomats is a subcat of Category:Women by occupation and parent of both Category:Women ambassadors and Category:Women diplomats by nationality. Similarly Category:Ghanaian female diplomats and Category:Indian female diplomats are subcats of Category:Women diplomats by nationality, where at time of nomination there were about a dozen sibling "fooian women diplomats" categories. (I have since created many many more "fooian women diplomats" cats.
A not-huge lead in common usage might be insufficient to justify renaming a whole tree, but it is more than enough to override an objection to conformity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I wrote was: "Female is in no way disrespectful. It is the usual adjective associated with women in everyday speech (as opposed to "women", which is not an adjective but a noun)." Not sure how you interpreted that as: "'women diplomats' is not used at all". Nope, that's not what I said in any interpretation. "Usually used" does not equate to "always used"! I acknowledge it's sometimes used. I would dispute it is the commonest usage. And still, we have no refutation of my comments on the ridiculous reason given for this proposed move in the first place, which had nothing to do with conformity of category titles or even commonest usage. But there we go. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Look at it again: the usual adjective associated with women in everyday speech (as opposed to "women", which is not an adjective but a noun).
The usage of "women" as an adjective is well-established, per the evidence I posted.
As you know, en.wp follows reliable sources, not one editors assessment of "everyday speech" (in what section of what society? Everyday speech varies widely between English-speaking areas, from Soweto to Sunderland to Sneem to Southend to Spokane to Saint Helena).
Per the evidence above, the "women fooers" is actually the more usual usage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:02, 8 January 2018 (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/2018_January_2&oldid=1073191636"