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:Keep as container categories. Jafeluv (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We need a category to tell us an article subject is a man? We need categories to tell us the gender of an article subject? Since when? Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement with keeping as the parent category, but I do not see any rationale for these categories popping up on individual subject articles. For instance, these do not have a rational reason to come up as an additional category on Charlie Sheen or Anne Hathaway, which is what prompted this nomination. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – categories follow from the article, not vice versa. There is surely no problem with Category:Women and many of its subcats. I don't myself see anything wrong with Category:Women by century as gender is not a recent phenomenon. (Can these noms not be placed together so one can comment just the once?) Occuli (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are placed together now. Carlaude:Talk 21:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
that it is used solely as a container category for any sub-groupings of 21st-century women, etc., which are actually worth keeping, and that no individual women are categorised in it
that the existence of this category provides no part of any justification for creating or retaining any subcat
A dozen or more CFDs over the last few months have deleted sportspeople-by-century categories, and there is clearly little support for by-centuries categories of people; I can't recall any categories-by-gender-and-century being retained. Maybe some of the sub-cats of this category would survive a CFD, but if they don't, then this category should be deleted. It should not be allowed to become a sprawling category of thousands of individual women. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on two conditions per Bhg. As I've said before, there are some types of "by century" categories that should only be used for clearly historical periods, which usually means stopping at the 19th century. I don't object at all to individual women going directly into Category:7th-century women, if there is no suitable sub-cat, but "21st" will be hopeless. Johnbod (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All as parent categories for their various subcats. Alansohn (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for now) as container categories only, tag with {{container category}}, remove all articles, and remove any category that is not a by-century subcategory. Also remove subcategories that are not exclusive to men or women (e.g., categories for heads of government of a country, unless there is a legal restriction on one gender occupying the position). -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but as parent-only category. I am not convinced of the value of 21st century people categories, but they seem to keep coming. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all 1. They are trivial in there inclusion criterion. 2. They are unclear, because many people live(d) in both centuries. 3. There is no such category tree (I mean to say that these are the only two centuries that have similar categories) 4. No need to distinguish men from women. 5. No need for these supracategories to make something else work. 6. Per numerous precedents over the last months (as mentioned by BHG above, and supported each and every one of them by me) to delete century based categories.Debresser (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2010 (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:Progressive think tanks based in the United States[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. — ξxplicit 04:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The poorly-decided precedents closed by an admin supervote discarded, these are organizations that describe themselves as progressive as their defining characteristic. That we maintain hundreds of subcategories within the parent Category:Activists shows that we do indeed categorize based on opinion and this one here is no exception. Alansohn (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a problem with the closures of the CfDs, you know where to find WP:DRV. However, unless those CFD closures are overturned, it makes no sense to delete Category:American progressive organizations but keep the organisations which someone has labelled as think-tanks. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The concern about subjectivity can be resolved by including only those organizations that identify themselves as progressive. Maurreen (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"If there is no agreement on a definition of 'progressive' then self-identification does not lead to an objective fact. If there is no basis of objective and uncontroversial fact, then this particular attribute cannot be held to be a suitable basis for a scheme of categorisation." - quoted from the closing rationale for Cat:American progressive organizations. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. I was about to agree with Maurreen, but then thought better of it for exactly the same reasoning. Rd232talk 19:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, especially for consistency because the parent category was deleted. But also per arguments given last time—the term is subjective and not amenable to an all-or-none categorization. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per my objections in those same categories. I think about opening a project wide Rfc on the matter of political movements and their names on Wikipedia, because this is getting out of hand. If the name of an organisation includes it, and reliable sources use it, then so should we. Debresser (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. You appear to be advocating categorisation by shared name, but only one of the 14 article in the category uses the word "progress" in its name, and not even one includes the word "progressive" in its name. Since none of the articles meets your inclusion criteria, the effect of adopting your approach would be for the category to emptied, and then be deleted as as empty. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:self close; category creator went ahead and made the change and the old category was deleted. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom; good example of an acronym that means nothing to those not already "in the know". Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me, I'll change it myself in a day or two. Someone could have pinged me about this, you know... — V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 08:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator and per guidelines to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2010 (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 associated with the University of York[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:Keep. Jafeluv (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "associated with" seem unnecessarily vague. We already have categories for alumni and academics, and this category adds nothing else. Rodhullandemu 01:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Personally, I don't see why the three subcategories in categories like this aren't just directly in the eponymous university category (Category:University of York, in this case). Having another layer just creates a potential problem of people deciding that someone is "associated with" the university because they spoke at a conference there, or some other such trivial occurance. I think changing this seemingly widespread system for English universities would maybe be better evaluated with a broader nomination, though. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — as per Occuli above and also there are people who do not fit into the subcategories, but are associated with the university. It is better that they are in this category than the parent category, which is not specifically associated with people. In addition, this category is a subcategory of Category:People from York and it is better to have these people collected together in a single category rather than as three subcategories. I agree with the comment above too that this is a general issue not specific to the University of York, but that this category is worthwhile for many universities. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to maintain a separate category for those definingly connected to the university. Alansohn (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:University of York. The articles are a miscellaneous hotchpotch: a vice-chancellor (presumably of faculty), a board member, an honorary doctor (who should not be in at all), two people who gave their names to buildings - one perhpas a benefactor. Possibly we might keep it, but the categories in it should certainly be upmerged to the university category. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Occuli, which is the established category tree argument. Debresser (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2010 (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.
