Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 20 June 22 >

June 21[edit]

Regions of NZ clean-up[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'. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Some time ago the main articles for the regions in New Zealand were standardised to the name format "XXX Region". User:Grutness put a lot of work into changing the corresponding category names (e.g., [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]), but unfortunately he had to leave WP before they were finished. These are the remaining ones that have not yet been changed. If these are changed, all the categories that refer to regions in NZ will be in the same format. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support finishing standardisation of these categories, the rename matches the official legal names [7], and aligns them with the article titles and Commons categories also. XLerate (talk) 01:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename disambiguate 'New Zealand' unnecessary as official names are unambiguous Mayumashu (talk) 04:18, 22 June 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:Campbell Island[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. Courcelles (talk) 07:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Campbell Island to Category:Campbell Island, New Zealand
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose matching category name to article name, Campbell Island, New Zealand. Campbell Island alone is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:42, 21 June 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:Snares Islands[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/2010 July 1#Category:Snares Islands. — ξxplicit 23:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Snares Islands to Category:The Snares
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest matching category name to article name, The Snares. According the the article, "Snares Islands" is an alternate, though unofficial, name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Entirely reasonable and consistent. TheGrappler (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the unofficial note in the article is unsourced. LINZ lists the full official name as "Snares Islands/Tini Heke", per the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998 (Offshore islands list). Elsewhere in that list and the LINZ map[8] both use "Snares Islands". I think the article and category both ought to be Snares Islands/Tini Heke, there is a convention to use these full names - Aoraki/Mount Cook, Stewart Island/Rakiura etc. XLerate (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm kind of indifferent as to which is used, but I do think that the article and category name should correspond. Maybe a proposal to move the article could be made? Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The proposed move has been made. I also updated the article to remove unofficial, it may have been an error, the legistlation says the earlier name was Snares Islands[9]. XLerate (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm willing to have the close of this proposal put on hold until the article rename discussion finishes and I think it should follow whatever name results from the move request. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (nom). The article move discussion referred to is here. I suggest that the name of the category should follow the result there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the main article is under rename discussion. This should be closed until it is resolved. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 05:34, 24 June 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.

Art Deco architecture[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 all. A prior discussion may have resulted in other categories to be renamed, but this discussion did not. — ξxplicit 21:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Art Deco buildings to Category:Art Deco architecture
And equivalent changes (buildings -> architecture) for Category:Images of Art Deco buildings, Category:Art Deco buildings in Virginia, Category:Art Deco buildings in Oklahoma, Category:Art Deco buildings in Massachusetts, Category:Art Deco buildings in Maryland, Category:Art Deco buildings in Florida, Category:Art Deco buildings in Connecticut, Category:Art Deco buildings in California, Category:Art Deco buildings in the United States, Category:Art Deco buildings in the United Kingdom, Category:Art Deco buildings in Wales, Category:Art Deco buildings in Scotland, Category:Art Deco buildings in London, Category:Art Deco buildings in England, Category:Art Deco buildings in Shanghai, Category:Art Deco buildings in Poland, Category:Art Deco buildings in New Zealand, Category:Art Deco buildings in Indonesia, Category:Art Deco buildings in France, Category:Art Deco buildings in Canada, Category:Art Deco buildings in Belgium, Category:Art Deco buildings in Portugal, Category:Art Deco buildings in Tasmania, Category:Art Deco buildings in Melbourne, Category:Art Deco buildings in Australia
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is another "odd one out" in the architecture categories; in fact subcategories of "Art deco buildings" currently include a mixture of "Art deco architecture in X" and "Art deco buildings in X". All comparable architectural style categories use "architecture" (e.g. Category:Gothic Revival architecture and subcategories). This usage seems preferable and more consistent so I'm suggesting a batch rename for the "Art Deco buildings" categories... if there's disagreement with this, then all the "Art Deco architecture" categories need to be renamed instead. (For what it's worth, "architecture" rather than "buildings" would also make this consistent with foreign language wikis and Commons). TheGrappler (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose It is more the case that this is a shining example to the rest of the very poorly categorized architecture sector - see another nom (Period or architecture sites in Italy and Germany - 3 or so below). Ideally all styles would have "buildings" categories below architecture ones. The big problem with these categories is that most are only in the "buildings & structures" trees but not the "architecture" trees. Eg Category:Art Deco buildings in the United Kingdom. but the nom will do nothing to help this. Another architectural nom that will make problems worse not better; for that work on Hotcat etc is needed. Johnbod (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the very least, on your logic surely it should be "buildings and structures", not "buildings"? (There's a reasonable case for that actually, and I do agree that the architecture categories need work.) The vast majority of foreign language wikipedias are going with dividing architecture by style, and then by location, just like we do: an article about "Castle Wibble", an example of Foostyle architecture in Barland, would be categorized under "Category:Castles in Barland" (a subcat of "Category:Buildings and structures in Barland" as well as "Category:Castles by country") and "Category:Foostyle architecture in Barland", a subcat of both "Category:Foostyle architecture" and "Category:Barland architecture". "Category:Buildings and structures in Barland" is also a subcat of "Category:Barland architecture". From what you're saying, I get the impression that you think we should reverse the relationship between the "Buildings and structures" and "Architecture" categories - so that the architecture ones are subcategories of the buildings and structures ones? I think there's a good argument for doing that. As for this particular CFD, I know that a lot of these categories need work and that this nom will not directly help with getting the category tree right - I'm going to do that with HotCat. I nominated it because the names for this bunch of categories are inconsistent with our other architecture-by-style categories, which is something that CFD can deal with. Why should we be inconsistent about Art Deco? Even if you want this bunch kept in their old names, what do you want done with Category:Art Deco architecture in Texas? Do you want that renamed to "buildings" (or "buildings and structures")? TheGrappler (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say above "Ideally all styles would have "buildings" categories below architecture ones", so fitting into both trees. But especially for styles before the 19th century hardly any buildings are categorized by style at all. According to WP cats there are fewer than 200 Gothic (not Gothic Revival) buildings in the world, when in fact we have several thousand articles on such buildings. The same goes for other styles. A rename to add "and structures" would be fine. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have for some time been working slowly to improve the categorization of buildings and structures by architectural type, using the "Whatlinkshere" button to hunt down uncategorized articles. But I've mostly been dealing with the "Revival" styles - pre-19th century is on my to-do list, but it'll be a while and any help would be appreciated. I agree with you that it would be better to rearrange the category paths, but I don't see why we need a host of "Foostyle buildings and structures" and "Foostyle buildings and structures in Barland" categories to achieve the paths we both seem to want, when our current "Foostyle architecture in Barland" categories largely fill the latter role already. What's wrong with the category scheme "Foostyle architecture in Barland" < "Architecture in Barland" (or "Architecture in Barland by style") < "Buildings and structures in Barland" ? (It's not what we've got at the moment, and would involve swapping category path orders, but not any new categories.) Somebody browsing the buildings category in a location can then split it down by architectural type, which is (like you said) the desired result, rather than having to do it by working "up-stream" of the category path, to the architectural category, and then down again. If we create a whole bunch of new "buildings and structures by style" categories, then the extant "Foostyle architecture in Barland" categories will be left mostly empty (with some stray examples of regional articles perhaps e.g. Bristol Byzantine would still be left in "Neo-Byzantine architecture in the United Kingdom"). I can't see that having to click through such mostly empty categories is going to make life and easier or clearer for a navigating reader. TheGrappler (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Architecture" as parent for "architects" and "buildings" etc. sub-cats seems a natural division - compare the visual art categories. In many cases there should ultimately be sub-cats for churches, houses etc. I agree the geographic subdivisions go too far for what is there now, especially as the modern Italian & German regions/lande are not always familiar to anglophones. I'd probably support consolidating these to single national categories. Johnbod (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think in most cases, parallel categorization by style + location and style + building type will suffice, categorizing by style + location + building type will probably lead to a lot of small categories (e.g. best to be under "Foostyle churches" and "Foostyle architecture in Barland", rather than be almost the only entry under "Foostyle churches in Barland"). What I don't understand about your proposal is the benefit from adding in an extra layer of categories - the navigation "Foostyle architecture" > "Foostyle churches" seems fine; why is "Foostyle architecture" > "Foostyle buildings and structures" > "Foostyle churches" an improvement? Similarly, why add the extra step "Foostyle architecture by location" > "Foostyle architecture in Barland" > "Foostyle buildings and structures in Barland" when the first two seem sufficient? Extra intervening categories make navigation more long-winded and will just mean that "Foostyle architecture" categories are left largely depopulated. Architect biographies should be in subcategories of style categories, and categories like "buildings and structures in Barland" should be divisible by architectural style, but we don't need to create "Foostyle buildings and structures in Barland" categories to do that: just make "Barland architecture" (which is divided by style) a subcat of "B&S in Barland" (reversing the current setup) and to ensure that architects are zoned off into their own categories. My main worry about your proposal is that it just seems much more natural to put a cathedral under e.g. the "Gothic Revival architecture" category than "Gothic Revival buildings and structures" (the former formulation actually seems natural and the latter sounds artificial), ergo editors are going to keep doing it. A lot. There is going to be a huge maintenance job, perpetually re-allocating misplaced articles from "Gothic Revival architecture" type categories to "Gothic Revival buildings and structures" type categories. There are several hundred categories that would need an ever-vigilant eye kept on them. Since the "architecture" categories already do the job and are relatively unambiguous (I already waste quite enough of my life trying to weed out Neo-Romanesque and Gothic Revival articles from the Romanesque and Gothic categories!), why add to the maintenance burden by making a relatively artificial split? Can we not just focus on maintaining, tidying up, and populating the existing category scheme, with some adjustments to the category tree order where necessary? TheGrappler (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As in any tree, the extra layers allow grouping in different trees, so Gothic churches can have their own head-cat. Such categories are highly useful, and the absence of this is a good part of the problem in the present situation. All the eggs are put into the location basket. Once established, clearly named categories need little maintenance except allocating new articles from head-cats to sub-cats occasionally. Historic categories can really just drop the "and structures"; they only did buildings, not telecoms towers. Johnbod (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that not enough work has been done creating suitable subcategories but I don't see why the extra layer is necessary, or that the current structure puts all the eggs in the "location" basket. For instance we already have Category:Moorish Revival synagogues and Category:Neo-Gothic skyscrapers but we don't have Category:Moorish Revival buildings and structures. We just have split Category:Moorish revival architecture by location and by type of building and we could conceivably branch off a subcategory for architects of that style if we needed one. I fail to see why the B&S category would have made this any easier. We could do with Category:Moorish Revival theaters too, for example, but we don't need a B&S category to do it. As for dropping the "and structures", I don't think that's possible - not just because it would lead to inconsistency between categories, but because they did build monuments and bridges even if they didn't build telecoms towers. TheGrappler (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But you will never get to Category:Houses by architectural style or Category:Churches by architectural style that way, which is a big loss; this should be an ultimate aim. In fact we have Category:Synagogues by architectural design, which shows it can be done, though the name is not ideal. The synagogues are very well done actually. There are in fact other fragments of such a scheme here & there, like Category:Beaux-Arts buildings, Category:Baroque churches, Category:Byzantine sacred architecture and other Byzantine types, and many classical categories. Johnbod (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that - I am very much hoping to improve that aspect of the category scheme, and those fragments are the way to go. I don't know if you use the interwiki links to see how the French and Germans have done it, but they aren't using "Building and structure" categories to achieve what you want to. In what way is it impossible to get from get to Category:Houses by architectural style or Category:Churches by architectural style in the current system? A house in the Foostyle can be added to Category:Foostyle houses which can be made a subcat of Category:Houses by architectural style as well as Category:Foostyle architecture. Just like what we do with the Moorish Revival synagogues (has dawned on me that we should prob. be consistent with "revival" vs "Revival", I fear another batch-nom is going to be necessary, gah!). Sure, you can't get from Category:Foostyle architecture to Category:Houses by architectural style without heading "upstream" in the category navigation, but that's naturally necessary to get from a specific to a more general architectural style category (Foostyle -> all styles). The only thing that's missing is more of these "function/type + style" categories such as the Moorish Revival synagogues; that requires more work doing to the current system. But it hasn't dawned on me why a "Moorish Revival buildings and structures" would have helped? TheGrappler (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is nothing else in there, apart from 3 thematic articles. If it were a bigger category you would want a "by location" sub-cat anyway. It is not the parent cats at this level that are important but the smaller ones that allow the scheme to work in all directions. By your logic you should be proposing upmerging all architects by style categories. Johnbod (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What else would we want in the "Moorish Revival architecture" category though? Thematic articles about the style seem all that's needed. Particular examples of Moorish Revival architecture are stored by location, and for synagogues (and when I get round to it, churches, palaces, and theaters) by type also. If we wanted a category for Moorish Revival architects we could make one too. That would all work perfectly - the only problem is that not all the categories have been made yet. (Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% not proposing "upmerging all architects by style categories" - if you think my logic suggests that, then we appear to be talking at cross-purposes?) Once those categories have been made then aren't we both happy? All articles are neatly stored and easy to navigate to. As we both would wish, a reader could navigate from e.g. the theaters category to the "Moorish Revival theaters" subcategory, and find theaters sorted by that style. And the reader could also navigate from the "Ukraine" category to find Moorish Revival architecture in Ukraine. (Most easily via: Ukraine > Buildings and structures in Ukraine > Ukrainian architecture > Moorish Revival architecture in Ukraine, if we play with the category tree about a bit.) What would be wrong with that? TheGrappler (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only because you have added two of the categories you work on to Category:Ukrainian architecture! I've been to Ukraine, & trust me, it is not characterised by Moorish Revival or Neo-Byzantine architecture, as the innocent wiki-reader might think to see this! This is not the way these categories work, and while I'm glad to see any links between the "architecture" and "buildings" trees, it will get messy if all the styles pile in to this tree in this way. Plus adding them in this way suggests that ALL items in the architecture categories are in fact buildings (as they are here), in which case why not say so clearly, as Art Deco does? Larger architecture categories are a mix of all sorts of stuff. Johnbod (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know that at present the Ukrainian architecture categories are highly unrepresentative :) But I can't see a way around that - categories are only going to get dealt with slowly, and the ones that get tagged first are going to skew the appearance of the rest. As I said in my very first reply to you, I agree there's a reasonable case for calling the categories "buildings and structures" rather than "architecture". But we ought at least be consistent - we may need to nominate something around 500 categories for a batch rename if it's preferable to put "buildings and structures" in the name of categories (I suspect mostly regional/national subcategories for particular styles). If we don't, I actually don't think that the tree intersection would be as messy as you suggest - a fully-formed "foostyle architecture" category at present would likely be divided into a subcategory "foostyle architecture by country" (that carries all the national subcategories), "foostyle architects" (if they form a distinct class and are worth branching off), and subcategories for the different building types (houses, churches, palaces etc). That really doesn't seem too bad to me. There are some particular advantages that will be lost if all the "Foostyle architecture in Barland" categories become "Foostyle buildings and structures in Barland" - it sounds less natural (aside from this being less than ideal for the reader, my fear is that more articles will end up at "Foostyle architecture" because that's where editors will put them; across so many categories it is not a trivial task to keep them tidy and move articles downstream) and isn't so inclusive of local or national-specific varieties of styles (e.g. Bristol Byzantine is a good candidate for Category:Gothic Revival architecture in England but not for Category:Gothic Revival buildings and structures in England; perhaps unsurprisingly I can't think of a corresponding example for Moorish Revival architecture in Ukraine!). The advantage gained from the change is that the category contents would be more consistent/specific, but I am not sure that will be as great a stride forward as it sounds - in practice, we're still bound to end up with heaps of building/structure articles in the "architecture" categories, even if there are no "general architecture" articles in the "building and structure" categories, so consistency is likely to remain elusive. I am aware that my feelings on the matter basically base the case around (a) defeatism/realism about maintainability and (b) giving lots of flexibility just for a few relatively rare exceptions like the "Bristol Byzantine" article, so I'm not adamant that using "building and structures" rather than "architecture" categories is a bad idea - I just can't see a knockout reason to go with it. The problem to me appears to be the lack of suitable, populated subcategories rather than the question of naming them for "architecture" or "buildings". My preference would be to continue with the "architecture" categories rather than the "buildings" ones (as is the situation with almost every style except Art Deco at the moment), give these category trees a working over, and then review the situation to see if it winds up as messy as you think. However, I know you have greater expert knowledge than I do in this area; if you are certain that "builldings [and structures]" categories are the way to go, and you could map out a "model" category tree, then I'm happy to go along with it - though we may need to find somebody with a bot to handle any ensuing batch rename. TheGrappler (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose. Buildings are a subset of architecture (with peer categories of people (architects, designers, sculptors etc.) and thought (books, theories, sub-styles)). So if Architecture is required for consistency it should be introduced anew, and not replace existing Buildings. East of Borschov (talk) 02:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a logical way to split things. There is an alternative (and still fairly logical way) of viewing the current practice, in which in most cases buildings are stored in architecture categories - a hotel is an example of architecture, while the architect who built it isn't; so the hotel can be stored in "Foostyle architecture in Maryland" while the architect is in "Foostyle architects". What you outlined is perfectly reasonable, but I don't think current practice in other categories is unreasonable either. TheGrappler (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previous CFD - I'd forgotten about this, but at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 4#Category:Neo-Byzantine buildings in the United States universal consensus, after a similar debate about "buildings" or "buildings and structures", was for "buildings" -> "architecture". Obviously consensus can change, and I can see the benefits of stating "buildings" or "buildings and structures", but a lot of renaming would be necessary for consistency (a glimpse of this can be seen at Category:American architectural styles, where about 450 mostly state-level "architecture" subcategories would need renaming). If we do want to distinguish between physical "buildings"/"buildings and structures" and the wider architectural style, might a better analogy with the visual arts categories be to use the word "works" e.g. "Gothic Revival works in England" rather than "Gothic Revival buildings [and structures] in England"? TheGrappler (talk) 16:14, 23 June 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:Child laptops[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. Courcelles (talk) 07:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Child laptops (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete: Yet another User:Nopetro special - as usual, a small number of articles, most of which barely intersect with the designated topic. In this case, he created the category 8 days before he created the poorly-written "main article", Child computer -- which he also placed in two of the parent cats for this category. (As it happens, he also created one of those parent cats, Category:Learning to read, which from a cursory glance does have the appearance of a proper category.) One can't help wondering why not Category:Child computers, and why is Child laptop a redirect? The most amusing thing about this category was spotting it in Category:Children, where it stood out quite stunningly among all of the sub-categories for articles about individual children. Notified creator (now editing as User:Nudecline) with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - really does seem quite useless in its current form. TheGrappler (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - although I had wondered what the intersection of 'children' and 'laptops' might look like. Occuli (talk) 00:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No kidding! When I first spotted this category among those other child sub-cats, in my instantaneous literal-minded reaction I flashed on an image of a sort of child/computer hybrid/cyborg. Very freaky. Cgingold (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have seen the seriousness of the deletion proposal "child/computer hybrid/cyborg. Very freaky". Good and cool work. Also, delete the ABC child computer (what is that?) at the same time. I am proud of this topic in Wikipedia. --Nudecline (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Welcome to the discussion, Nudecline. I'm not terribly surprised to learn that you think the category should be kept - but you haven't provided us with a viable argument as to exactly why it is a proper category. And you won't be able to do so until you have made a serious study of WP:CAT, leading to a real understanding of the purpose & function of Categories. Cgingold (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS - We like to inject a little humor around here whenever possible to keep things from getting too grim! (Btw, if you understood why it was funny I dare say you would laugh, too. Hint: you stuck it in the wrong parent cat when you used Category:Children instead of Category:Childhood.) Cgingold (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • PPS - I think you'll be a lot less likely to get your feelings hurt if you learn to apply the rules for creating good categories (as we have been begging you to do for weeks). Cgingold (talk) 14:00, 22 June 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:Jewish clergy[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. Withdrawn by nominator. Courcelles (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:Propose renaming Category:Jewish clergy to Category:Judaic clergy

Nominator's rationale: This is really a test case . I raised this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Can_you_have_a_look and Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Jewish_issue but got no reply.

Withdrawn, no attempt to discuss the clear confusion between the Ethnoreligious group and the religious issue is being made by the keeps. While I still believe this is still totally unclear there is clearly no appetite to discuss it Gnevin (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish is an ethnic grouping while Judaism is a religion. You don't have to be ethnically Jewish to believe in Judaism nor do you have to be ethnically Jewish to be a Judaic clergy person Gnevin (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Jewish denotes both an ethnic grouping and a religion. Complicated, huh! Johnbod (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On wiki Jewish is a Ethnoreligious group while Judaic points to the religion so Jewish doesn't denote both at least on wiki, infact there is a clear distinction Gnevin (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What should be done with Jean-Marie Lustiger, a Jew who was the Roman Catholic archbishop of Paris? He was both Jewish and a clergyman. If we did have "Judaic clergy", shouldn't Lustiger be "Jewish clergy" while rabbis are stored in a "Judaic clergy" subcategory? If we don't have "Judaic clergy", should Lustiger be in the "Jewish clergy" category at all? TheGrappler (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I agree we may need both, however Judaic clergy shouldn't be a sub cat as it implies everyone in it is Jewish which doesn't have to be the case .Gnevin (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Judaic clergy are not necessarily Jewish, why are you making this nom? Occuli (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because as I said this is a test case as I want to see where opinion is lying here Gnevin (talk) 07:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—"Jewish" is the standard terminology. See [10] [11] [12] [13] I have been involved in Jewish education for many years and have never heard it referred to as "Judaic" X. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 21:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Jewish" certainly is the standard terminology (and I'd !vote "keep" on that basis). I can see that the nominator is trying to find a way around the "religion"/"ethnic" division. Since you have some experience in the field, I wonder if you would have an opinion on examples like Jean-Marie Lustiger - do Jewish Catholics belong in "Jewish clergy", or some subcategory of it? TheGrappler (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds a reasonable idea. Is "apostate" always the correct word though? For instance, if someone is Jewish by ethnicity but brought up in a secular, non-religious environment, then converts to Christianity, are they really an "apostate"? The only religious viewpoint they are converting away from might be agnosticism or atheism, and we usually don't refer to former atheists as "apostates". Even the phrase "Converts from Judaism" doesn't seem quite right for someone from a secular background. Or do most Jews tend to view such people as "apostates" whether they practised the faith or not? TheGrappler (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds wildly POV to me - why don't we go the whole hog & call 'em self-hating while we're at it! There are enough clergy in Category:Converts to Roman Catholicism from Judaism to make a clerical sub-cat Category:Jewish Roman Catholic clergy, which could obviously also go here as a sub-cat too, assuming the nom fails. Johnbod (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I ought to note that my "reasonable idea" comment referred more to the suggested structure of the category - for people who were not, or no longer, Judaism-practising, rather than the word "apostate"! TheGrappler (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a vast history of CFDs in this area which show the whole matter is best left alone. Otherwise you start having to decide, on the basis of WP bios, if people were one, both or either of religiously or ethnically Jewish. In religious categories "Jewish" clearly means Judaic unless the name gives other information, like the putative Category:Jewish Roman Catholic clergy. Johnbod (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is - I agree that this can of worms is best left alone. We understand that "Jewish" encompasses both religion & ethnicity -- and there is no viable solution that doesn't make matters much, much worse. It's a unique real-world situation, and all in all, the current category structure is really the best we can do. Cgingold (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to use the standard terminology. Alansohn (talk) 05:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because, in the proper and conventional sense, "Jewish" denotes being BOTH a Jew (i.e. the Jewish people) and a part of Judaism (i.e. the Jewish religion) simultaneously. Also, "if it's not broken don't fix it"! IZAK (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what of the converts who aren't ethnically Jewish but are member of the region such as Madonna_(entertainer) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnevin (talk • contribs)
      • To the anon above: If they are genuine converts then they are Jews. Period. They become part of the Jewish people, regardless of their background. Madonna is not Jewish, she is a follower of the Kabbalah Centre which accepts gentiles as followers. At no point has Madonna definitively stated or attested that she is "Jewish". IZAK (talk) 06:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • And if you convert away from Judism your kicked out of the Ethnoreligious group too? If someone converts to atheism they they are still Jewish (Ethnoreligious) just as Madonna is not a Jew (Ethnoreligious) but Jewish (Religion). Your ethnicity is not affected by faith Gnevin (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- It is perfectly clear as it is. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah clear as mud Gnevin (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gnevin: Feel free to make constructive comments. But please stop making unhelpful comments that border on violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep. Yet another of nom's Jewish-related nominations. Perhaps its time to consider a slow-down procedure for nom's who make a high number of nominations that end up in snow and speedy keeps.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 is a high number where you come from? Gnevin (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Owe and 2 of them where withdrawn by me. When a user explained the purpose of them Gnevin (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cats and lists together -- I believe you are up to a couple of dozen such nominations for the week. Yes; that's a high number of deletions efforts of cats and lists related to one specific people. Where I come from.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of dozen! Over the month it's not even half a dozen. Check it and then offer your apologies Gnevin (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since June 18 we have this snow/speedy keep of your effort to delete List of Jews in Sports, this snow keep of your effort to delete List of Jewish American sportspeople, your efforts to delete (later withdrawn) Category:Jewish sports people, Category:Jewish sports organizations, Category: Jewish athletes, Category:Jewish basketball players, Category:Jewish boxers, Category:Jewish chess players, Category:Jewish fencers, Category:Jewish footballers, Category:Jewish golfers, Category:Jewish gymnasts, Category:Jewish ice hockey players, Category:Jewish rugby league footballers, Category:Jewish rugby union players, Category:Jewish martial artists, Category:Jewish professional wrestlers, Category:Jewish swimmers, Category:Jewish table tennis players, Category:Jewish tennis players, Category: Jewish volleyball players, and Category:Jewish weightlifters, and Jewish American sportspeople. Rough calculation -- 23 cats and lists together. As Steve Martin would say, "He Hates Cans!"--Epeefleche (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The are lies, demand lies and statistics and you are now attempting to move the goal posts by claiming 1 nom which was a multi category nom as separate which no one ever does. It was 4 afd nominationsGnevin (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's a demand lie? Anyway, what I said was accurate -- you sought to delete two dozen cats and lists. The fact that you rolled up many of the cats (improperly, as it turned out) into one nomination is irrelevant. You were seeking to delete that number of cats and lists. Which is all I said. I won't demand, as you did of me, that you offer me your apologies, as I recognize you may not be so inclined. But what I said was perfectly accurate.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The present wording is clear and I see no justificatin for the change. Davshul (talk) 11:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clear meaning what? Jewish needs a DAB but apparently I'm the only one who finds a word with 2 common means as a little unclear Gnevin (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing like something the is so clear we've entire article on it Who_is_a_Jew?#Ethnic_and_cultural_perspectives Gnevin (talk) 14:59, 29 June 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:English-language songs[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. We have many potentially colossal categories, and many underpopulated ones. But that doesn't mean they don't have reason to exist. This category has all the appropriate parallel categories, both by language (Category:French-language songs) and by format (Category:English-language albums).--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:English-language songs

Nominator's rationale: Delete this apparently new category. It's just plain silly (pardon the Plain English, but I'm very tired today) to have such a broad category, which would likely have hundreds of thousands of members. What's the point — and what's next, Category:English-language books? --CliffC (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Too common to make a useful category. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - it does date from 2007 by the way, so not exactly new! And we do have Category:Literature in English by the way. The category is a useful way to categorize related things. I don't have a problem with it - just because this is the English Wikipedia doesn't mean this category is useless. Actually it would potentially be very useful for people building up semantic information using Wikipedia data. TheGrappler (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it seems to include translations, so is not far off "Songs". Other language categories may be different. Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a particular problem with including translations? If a song has been released in two languages (e.g. Whenever, Wherever = Suerte) what is wrong with calling it both? It's quite Anglocentric to assume "English-language songs" = "Songs". TheGrappler (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it is just recognising the anglocentricity of both WP and the world's music industry (see the languages used in the Eurovision Song contest these days). As the next comment says, "thousands of subcategories of Category:Songs by artist need to be categorized by language where applicable" - but what's the point really? Johnbod (talk) 12:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of the sub-categorization scheme Category:Songs by language, as well as having a partner in crime, Category:English-language albums. If the category needs to be diffused, create subcategories or categorize existing categories to resolve the problem. For example, Category:The Notorious B.I.G. songs, currently one of the two subcategories (ignoring the fact that that thousands of subcategories of Category:Songs by artist need to be categorized by language where applicable), leads the way if all the songs are in the English language. As for musicians who release songs in two or more languages, like the Shakira example above, they can be categorized in both English-language and Spanish-language songs. As mentioned in the nom, Category:English-language books doesn't exist, but Category:English-language novels does. — ξxplicit 23:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - legitimate, useful, and important category for navigation and classification. gidonb (talk) 01:38, 30 June 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:Nuclear power station articles with no picture[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/2010 July 1#Category:Nuclear power station articles with no picture. — ξxplicit 23:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Nuclear power station articles with no picture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another reason why templates should not add categories. {{Infobox nuclear power station}} adds this maintenance category on the article page when no image is provided. All other projects include the missing picture category on the talk page. These either use a separate infobox to request the image or include it as a parameter on the assessment project template. One could argue this could simply be changed to a hidden category. While that might be an alternative, I think that using the standard way to include the category within the project template is the better solution. While the current request is generated by the template if no image is provided, the loss of this functionality and requiring manual inputting of this should not be a major issue. If someone would like to manually move the category to the talk page, that is an alternative. But I don't think we need to make it a requirement for this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:36, 21 June 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.

Period or architecture sites in Italy and Germany[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: convert all "of"s to "in"s, delete category:Gothic sites in Germany, otherwise no consensus. This is a potentially useful scheme if it expands and gets clarified, and there doesn't seem to be a strong reason to stop it in its tracks now. No prejudice toward conversion or renomination later on.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Romanesque sites in Italy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
And many others: Category:Romanesque sites of Campania, Category:Romanesque sites of Emilia-Romagna, Category:Romanesque sites of the Lazio, Category:Romanesque sites of Lombardy, Category:Romanesque sites of Piedmont, Category:Romanesque sites of Abruzzo, Category:Romanesque sites of Tuscany, Category:Romanesque sites of Umbria, Category:Gothic sites in Germany, Category:Gothic sites in Italy, Category:Gothic sites of Abruzzo, Category:Gothic sites of Emilia-Romagna, Category:Gothic sites of the Lazio, Category:Gothic sites of Lombardy, Category:Gothic sites of Piedmont, Category:Gothic sites of Tuscany, Category:Gothic sites of Umbria, Category:Renaissance sites in Italy, Category:Renaissance sites of Campania, Category:Renaissance sites of Emilia-Romagna, Category:Renaissance sites of Lombardy, Category:Renaissance sites of Tuscany, Category:Renaissance sites of Umbria, Category:Renaissance sites of the Lazio, Category:Renaissance sites of the Marche
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Most of our other architecture style/period categories basically come down to categorizing architects and buildings by style and location. Here are a rather odd, underpopulated bunch that categorize entire towns and cities, mostly in Italy with a few in Germany, as "Gothic sites" or "Renaissance sites". "Gothic sites" is particularly confusing, since it suggests locations associated with the Goths, and "Renaissance sites" is also odd - it doesn't just mean "places that existed during or participated in the Renaissance", but apparently means "towns with Renaissance architecture". If you look at Category:Rome you can see it has been included in many of these categories - rendering the classification rather meaningless. An article explaining the distribution of the Gothic style in Italy (Gothic architecture in Italy could include this information) would make sense, but this category system doesn't. It's really quite unclear just how much architecture from a period there needs to in a town (or how much of it needs to have survived!) for it to count in one of these categories, which is very subjective - much better just to classify individual buildings. I don't think this category system works either for navigation or for classification. TheGrappler (talk)
Amendment - I can see the point of these categories, although I don't think they'd be greatly missed and their purpose would be much better fulfilled by an article that can explain which buildings (or former buildings) in the towns in each country were considered good examples of that style. If they are kept, then the Italian categories are spread very thin and should probably be upmerged. If they aren't upmerged then they ought to renamed (to "in" not "of", for consistency). Moreover, things like "Gothic sites in Italy" are misleading (that one sounds like it's to do with sites of activity of the Goths!) so would suggest a rename of "sites" to "architectural sites" for anything that's left. Category:Gothic sites in Germany and a couple of others just contained individual buildings, not entire sites, and therefore defunct to e.g. Category:Gothic architecture in Germany. Unless someone can think of some ideas to repopulate those categories, they can safely be deleted. TheGrappler (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support delete. A single building or castle is one thing, but "styling" the whole city is against common sense. OR (at best). P.S. I pinged User:Attilios about this discussion. East of Borschov (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rome is not typical of these sites, but is indeed one of the two or three best "sites" for Renaissance architecture in the world. Following the Rome category takes you to a variety of relevant categories, though not directly, unfortunately. Many of the places categorized are small towns or villages which do indeed have concentrations of buildings of a particular period, and are often officially classified as such. Johnbod (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, apologies that I forgot to do that. These categories are all very old and I'd assumed were unmaintained - my bad. TheGrappler (talk) 19:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although I agree they are not satisfactory. They are the main categories for this very badly undercategorized field, and just deleting them will not be an improvement at all. The Category:Buildings and structures has no "by style" categories except for Category:Art Deco buildings. These are the only categories categorizing by these styles buildings or places notable for buildings in these countries, and it often makes much more sense to categorize a whole village or small town than it would in the US. Create better categories and populate them then come back for these. Medieval architecture by style is appallingly badly covered in categories & we should be wary of removing what few we have. Johnbod (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Particularly for later styles we have excellent categories for buildings and architecture - look at Category:Gothic Revival architecture for an example, which covers a massive range of buildings and architects. Subcategorization is usually done under the "architecture" categories rather than "buildings and structures" which might be what you're not noticing - I really don't understand your comment that buildings are only categorized by style if they are "art deco"? Even for the Medieval period we do have some categories, like Category:Gothic architecture which includes subcategories for particular styles and for architects. I fail to see the benefit of making the entire Category:Rome a subcategory of "Renaissance sites in Lazio", "Gothic sites in Lazio" and "Romanesque sites in Lazio" - how does that navigationally benefit the normal reader, or group related things together for semantic data users? The architectural style articles do a much better job of explaining where an architectural style has been taken up, than the category system can do. The category system works for individual buildings - we could do with Category:Gothic architecture in Italy for instance, storing building information in a way analagous to Category:Gothic Revival architecture in England. TheGrappler (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If only this were true! In fact we have good stylistic coverage for public buildings in America, and then virtually NOTHING. If you look at Category:Gothic architecture by country it contains only two of the categories in the nom, and a handful of thematic articles. The "subcategories for particular styles and for architects" cover only Gothic Revival and minor regional varieties. I take it you now understand my Art Deco comment as you have now launched a nom above for that too! The deep problems here are not helped by removing what few categories we have (yet). Johnbod (talk) 12:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the 3rd English category just noticed & added. Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:English Gothic architecture is for the particular style, not a geographic one (according to the category blurb, there are English Gothic buildings outside England]]. I'm going to make and populate Category:Gothic architecture in England before too long, that would be the right category for the "by country". TheGrappler (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So it does! But frankly that is crazy. There is no English Gothic, as opposed to Gothic Revival, architecture outside Britain, despite a couple of American 17th century buildings with pointed windows claiming to be so. I strongly suggest not creating another category, but repurposing the existing one, which will involve next to no changes. Johnbod (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will probably stick that up for a category merge later. Melrose Abbey in Scotland is often described as being Perpendicular (at least in part) and I am sure there are other examples, but it must be debatable whether it's worth making the distinction. Incidentally, I could do with a view on the articles deposited, for the time being, at Category:Gothic architecture in the United States. Americans describe them as "Gothic" even in official contexts, and the 1630s is too early for Gothic Revival, but I wonder if Europeans would prefer to call them something else? TheGrappler (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had a go at the Smithfield one once, but was seen off by a local! Really they are what is called "Gothic Survival" informally - see Gothic Revival. There was quite a lot of this, especially in Oxford & Cambridge colleges, where the Gothic never quite died. See Jesus College, Oxford: "The architectural historian Giles Worsley has described the chapel's east window (added in 1636) as an instance of Gothic Revival architecture, rather than Gothic Survival, since a choice was made to use an outdated style – classical architecture had become accepted as "the only style in which it was respectable to build".[34]" - not that I quite follow his point. I added a contemporary quote on the matter somewhere or other once. I suppose they should stay, but need not determine the fate of the "English Gothic" category. Both have stepped gables & are Brick Gothic if they are anything. Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually the Art Deco thing was a coincidence :-) I'd been meaning to do something about both the "Gothic sites" and "Art Deco buildings" categories for several months, as they are inconsistent with the other architecture categories. The third one I've had my eye on is "Bauhaus" - I need to trawl around there a bit longer but I don't think it'll involve doing a CFD nom. (As it stands I think we just need to split out "architecture" and "architects" subcats, as the current category is rather catch-all.) "Gothic architecture" is in a particular bad state, I agree, and I want to sort it out (by creating and populating appropriate categories) to be more consistent with our cats for e.g. Neo-Byzantine, Gothic Revival and Neo-Romanesque architecture, which are in a happier state. The reason for this particular CFD nom is that "Gothic sites in Italy", "Renaissance sites in Italy" etc are at the very least a bad set of names (they are rather misleadingly titled, and should surely be renamed if kept: Category:Gothic architectural sites in Italy?) but also because classifying whole towns seems a bad way to use the category system. It's much better suited to article space, where the extent of different architectural styles and their main examples in different towns can be demarcated. At the moment, every single building in Rome is classified simultaneously under subcategories of "Romanesque", "Renaissance" and "Gothic" architecture! (To human navigation it may be obvious that not every single building in Rome is all of those styles, but that would potentially throw anyone using Wikipedia category data to automatically construct semantic relations, for instance.) I thought it would be a good idea to establish what people want done with the existing categories before I start up, and populate, a whole bunch of new ones. TheGrappler (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's the wrong way round, as I say above. Create & populate a set of new categories & I might support the deletion of these, although it is still arguable they have a role. For example through this tree you will find Civitavecchia, which has many important Renaissance buildings, including a fort designed by Michelangelo. But none of them have individual articles yet, unlike hundreds of city halls in the Mid-West. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's the wrong way round in your opinion but I couldn't check your opinion until I asked here - there's a Catch 22 element to my situation :) I wanted some input on how people wanted this category handled before I put a lot of effort into replicating some of its purpose. My problem with the current categories is twofold: (a) they have an incredibly misleading/ambiguous set of names - surely you can see that, and perhaps you could propose alternatives? (b) I'm not convinced of their usefulness to navigation, because the articles here don't really focus on architecture - it may just be a small aspect of them, and as a means of navigation this is rather less useful than an overview article like Renaissance architecture in Italy describing examples of the architecture in the different localities. The criteria for inclusion in the category tree are very fuzzy, which is what User:East of Borschov pointed out - does it need to be one building? Two? The whole town center? Does the architecture still need to be extant? This seems to be what articles are ideal for describing, rather than categories. I'll have a sort-out at subcatting the main Gothic architecture category (as you suggested), probably will get that dealt with in the next few days. If you think these categories should be kept, could you suggest a better set of names for them? TheGrappler (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(And for what it's worth, Category:Gothic sites in Germany turned out to just contain buildings which for now are in Category:Gothic architecture in Germany instead. Can we agree that that one can go? A new name for the other "Gothic sites" would seem sensible, and we could do with an agreement on "of" vs "in" - my money's on "in", if these are going to get kept. TheGrappler (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Ok, Germany can go then, but as we know the Italian ones are mostly places not buildings. I hesitate to point this out, but there are actually tons more "site" categories in Category:Romanesque architecture by country, and I expect there are other pockets. Some are buildings, some places. Whatever the limitations, i think we are better off for now with eg Barfrestone being categorized in this way than not. Johnbod (talk) 01:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I spotted the whole Romanesque lot too late! The Gothic and Renaissance ones probably have the most misleading names which is why I brought them up for discussion in the first place, any suggestions for a rename? ("Gothic sites in Italy" sounds on first impression like it refers to the Goths, is "Gothic architectural sites in Italy" any better?) The Italian categories are broken down rather too thinly, which makes me think that we should upmerge to a national level, does that seem reasonable to you? (If not, then the regional ones could do with "of" replaced by "in".) With an eye on the longer run, would a decent article, perhaps in the form of a list, seem a superior manner of navigation to these categories? TheGrappler (talk) 02:06, 23 June 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:Old Collegians[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 to Category:Old Collegians (Maritzburg College). — ξxplicit 23:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Old Collegians to Category:Former pupils of Maritzburg College
Nominator's rationale: The term "Old Collegian" is highly ambiguous, referring to past pupils of many other schools such as Methodist College Belfast. Many other uses of the term can be seen in this search. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:42, 21 June 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:White Zimbabwean footballers[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, invoking WP:SILENCE. — ξxplicit 23:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:White Zimbabwean footballers to Category:White Zimbabwean sportspeople and Category:White African footballers
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC with only one article linked to it and little room for growth - could recreate should the need arise at some later time Mayumashu (talk) 16:38, 21 June 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:Historic Farms of Norway[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, noting that this could have been speedied. — ξxplicit 23:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Historic Farms of Norway to Category:Historic farms in Norway
Nominator's rationale: Suggest rename as per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norway#Category:Historic Farms of Norway. The Norwegian word "gård" covers more than the word "farm" would in English, so perhaps another title may be better, but this renaming would at least solve the capitalization and of/in issue. TheGrappler (talk) 16:22, 21 June 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:Sami songs[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 as nominated. — ξxplicit 23:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sami songs to Category:Sami-languages songs
Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Songs by language and Sami languages. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:33, 21 June 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:Hebrew songs[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. Courcelles (talk) 07:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Hebrew songs to Category:Hebrew-language songs
Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Songs by language and Hebrew language. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I created this category four years ago by the example of other categories of its sort, in order to make songs in Hebrew better accessible for the users of our encyclopedia. Now Justin wants to improve and standardize and I am all in favor of such initiatives. Thank you, Justin, both for the nomination and the heads-up on my talk page! gidonb (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename - logical. TheGrappler (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match standard used in parent category. Alansohn (talk) 05:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, per nom.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:16, 28 June 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:Songs by language of India[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Songs by language of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Alternately, rename Category:Songs in Indian languages or something more grammatical. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:30, 21 June 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:Wikipedia essays on controversies[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. Courcelles (talk) 07:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia essays on controversies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is an underused category with a fairly woolly and meaningless title: what sort of material, precisely, should go in here? Not sure how helpful it could/can be. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 11:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion - or at the very least a rename to give it a much clearer scope? TheGrappler (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion - unclear. gidonb (talk) 01:21, 24 June 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:Sci-fi 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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sci-fi templates to Category:Science fiction templates
Nominator's rationale: Unneeded abbreviation. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong concur - the term "sci-fi" (however you spell it) is also considered pejorative by a significant fraction of the science fiction community, both professional and fan. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move for consistency with parent category Category:Science fiction. Svick (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Abbreviations are at their most useful when the actual name is too long or potentially confusing to readers. I don't think "science fiction" is a complex term. Dimadick (talk) 07:39, 25 June 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:Heads of settlement[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. Merging was clearly not something users here agreed upon, and there was a lack of activity after the proposed rename at the end of the discussion to consider it anything near consensus for that proposal. If the nom or anyone else would like to pursue it further, they can renominate the category at a future date. — ξxplicit 21:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Heads of settlement to Category:Positions of subnational authority
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This seems like an unnecessary layer. These are positions of subnational authority, so they can be categorized as such. (I originally suggested making this Category:Heads of populated places to remove "settlements," but this seemed a better course. If this doesn't pass, I would still recommend that change to comply with the similar changes to "settlements" categories.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The current name is not ideal, and could refer to a building or a landscape feature, but the category does mark a useful point of distinction. Positions such as mayor or burgomaster refer to a clustered settlement (whether a village, town or city) and in most cases are significantly different in character to the titles in Category:Positions of subnational authority. The latter category of titles (e.g. viceroy or satrap) refer to authority over a wide non-urban area, and generally have either much more power or huge prestige. That's a contrast with a mayor or burgomaster, whose is often mostly ceremonial and whose territory may be tiny. For example in France, the Maire of a Commune presides over an area of on average 10.73 km² with on average 380 inhabitants, and there are over 30,000 such Maires. The mayor of a big city may of course preside over a population of millions, but most mayors have small areas under their control. Lumping these municipal or village posts in with the likes of viceroys loses a useful distinction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose same reason as BHG: the roles of urban and territorial governments and their heads are distinctly different. I might also add that, despite cultural and political diversity, the role of a town mayor (whatever they call it) is more or less similar across the globe. Roads, schools, annual carnival... The territorial ("subnational") governors are a far more diverse zoo, varying with culture and political system. East of Borschov (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- My first reaction was that it should be "heads of towns", but some towns have the status of "city" and in France (I gather) every commune (parish) has one. This appears to demonstate the stupidity of moving everything to "populated places", which would be the logical destination. No vote. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Various mayors should not share categories with provincial governors, military commanders with a specific area of authority, or local representatives of the crown. Dimadick (talk) 07:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Heads local government. The current name is simply wrong and needs fixing. I don't see support for the current name being a good one, so something needs to be done. No consensus here is a really bad result. While this proposal may not be the best, I think it is a workable solution that makes the focus of the category clearer and addresses many of the concerns expressed. Add a short introduction to explain local (position below a country and the next lower political subdivisions) and we should be OK. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:33, 26 June 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:Slobomir[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. Courcelles (talk) 07:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Slobomir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unneeded eponymous category. Articles have ample categories so that no upmerge is needed. In the future if the town needs a category it can be created. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are no single need for deletion. Category is used and helpful, and why to delete it now, and recreate it is future? C'mon... --Tadijaspeaks 11:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There are not yet enough articles for this town to need an eponymous category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A rather small category with no subcategory of people from there or events relative to the location. Unecessary. Dimadick (talk) 07:33, 25 June 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:Cities along the Silk Road[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. Courcelles (talk) 07:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Cities along the Silk Road to Category:Populated places along the Silk Road
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Contains cities, towns, villages, and even counties. So like all other catchalls, it should be renamed to "Populated places".--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - either "populated places", "settlements", or whatever has been settled on for this kind of task. TheGrappler (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • support Per nom--T1980 (talk) 12:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • support Per nom. I don't see why towns are excluded. Dimadick (talk) 07:31, 25 June 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:Early punk groups[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: upmerge to Category:Punk rock groups. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Early punk groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent cat.s as necessary, since the inclusion criteria for this one is arbitrary and ill-defined. Alternately rename to Category:First-wave punk rock groups per List of musicians in the first wave of punk rock, but that seems equally ill-defined and unsourced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Punk rock groups. Some are in 'Fooian punk rock groups' but others are not in any other punk category. There was (amusingly) the subcat Category:Post-punk but I have moved it to a correct parent. Occuli (talk) 07:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge . Terms such as "early", "late", etc should be avoided as they are typically ill-defined. Dimadick (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge -- How early is "early"? This amkes it a POV category. It might be possible to have "punk groups to 19xx" if some one can establish objectively when the first wave ended, but much better just merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:14, 26 June 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:Articles requiring tables[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/2010 June 28. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Articles requiring tables (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The template {{make table}}, that was apparently used to populate this category, was redirected to {{listtable}} that uses Category:All articles requiring tables, so this category is no longer used and should be deleted. Alternative option is to use this category and delete Category:All articles requiring tables. Svick (talk) 02:17, 21 June 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:Upstate Connecticut[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Upstate Connecticut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: emptied - Skullers (talk) 02:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why emptoed? -- You deserve to be disciplined for emptying it out of process. However, I guess that what parts of the state are "upstate" is POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think the nominator emptied the category—most of the removals were done by User:Polaron after the article Upstate Connecticut was deleted here. If the article was deleted as a neologism, we certainly shouldn't be keeping a category of the same name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if there was an article describing the term, why isn't the category Category:Connecticut enough to cover any related subject? Dimadick (talk) 07:28, 25 June 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:Religion articles needing distinction between internal and external views[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: speedy delete as G8 (category dependent on a deleted template). BencherliteTalk 12:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Religion articles needing distinction between internal and external views (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The template {{in-religion-universe}} that put articles in this category has been deleted (2 years ago), so this category should be too. Svick (talk) 01:46, 21 June 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:Renault electric vehicles[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Renault electric vehicles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Single member category for Renault's only electric car. Mangoe (talk) 01:30, 21 June 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:Electric bus manufacturers[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: Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Electric bus manufacturers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Another User:Nudecline one-entry energy category, completely redundant to Category:Electric buses. Mangoe (talk) 01:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nudecline has been populating the category since it appeared here, and we now have entries for a handful of companies that manufacture (or in the case of Mitsubishi, will manufacture) electric of buses of various kinds along with ICE powered models. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination per above comments. Mangoe (talk) 14:03, 23 June 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:Women and psychology[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletion Category:Women and psychology
Nominator's rationale: There is no category Men and psychology. Having this category gives the impression that men are standard-humans, and women are exception-humans. Lova Falk talk 17:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I expanded it from 5 to 18 articles. The topic exists because of historical bias in psychology and especially psychoanalysis. Standard-human vs exception-human is not a bad description. The category covers mainstream feminine psychology and a critical perspective feminist psychology. See WP:Cat/gender. (See also male sexuality) --Pnm (talk) 07:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Where is the category "Men and psychology" so we can put male sexuality in it??? Lova Falk talk 08:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Category:Male sexuality would be useful since most of the male psych articles are completely about sexuality. (I think masculine psychology and testosterone poisoning are the only ones that aren't.) Subcategories would be Category:Male prostitution and Category:Male homosexuality --Pnm (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting note. Category was not tagged for deletion previously, so this should stay open for another full 7 days. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards keep. Not quite sure on this one, but as Lova Falk notes, psychology (like many other male-dominated academic disciplines) has historically problematised that which is not male, and this makes the category an important grouping. Per WP:CATGRS, a female category does not need to be balanced by creating a corresponding male category unless that topic has already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough to include several articles, although it could use expansion. But shouldn't this be a subcategory of Category:Feminism and health? Dimadick (talk) 07:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per comments already made.--Penbat (talk) 11:25, 25 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_21&oldid=1150995603"