The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:No rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I think this will address the issue of labeling, but we can still encompass women who wrote in the subcategories, considering the text already written in this category: This category exists in response to the widely-studied field of women writers and women's writing; it is generally recognized as a field of interest within literary studies; and it is recognized as a sub-category by the Library of Congress and the Modern Language Association. This is still meant to recognize women who write--not to delete any subcategories at all or delete this category. It will still contain author categories. I'm open to other suggestions! --Henriettapussycat (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm confused why we need a category named "Women writers".... hm. I refuse to put any of these categories up for deletion at all, it's just confusing to me. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 00:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This category is only supposed to contain articles about authors. It was deleted, drv'd, and restored in 2007: see eg 2007 March 23. Occuli (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that it shouldn't contain articles about authors. I am just proposing a name change because some women are bothered by the labeling such as "women writers." I am not proposing deletion either. I am simply saying we should rename and keep the explanation that is already there, so people know this is about women who are writers. I am all for recognizing women who write. I write myself and read women's writing, so I'm very invested in it. I want to look up authors on here. I also want to address the labeling issue, and I think this rename with the explanation would address it. I do not feel any of these subcategories should be removed or deleted, or that this should be deleted. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Women writers and women's writing mean different things; also women writers seems to me the term that's more common and makes the sense in this case Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This category should be limited to writers whose works intrinsicly relate to women. It should not include every writer who happens to have two X chromosomes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow you are totally misunderstanding my point of suggesting the rename. It is not meant to be writing related to subjects about women. It's just a rename, with nothing changed in the category.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename: The content in the categories is different. Beyond that, women's writing could be viewed as negative. Women's literature would be less offensive. If that was done, it would totally change the meaning. --LauraHale (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of renaming it to Women's Literature. I'd still be afraid that overzealous editors might assume it's only about subjects related to women rather than authors who are women. There is also already a name of Category:Literature by women. Totally up for suggestions.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, purpose is different (persons not writings). There is an article Women's writing in English and perhaps an article giving a worldwide view should be created; at present Women's writing is a disambiguation page. However, as for a category covering "Women's literature" meaning literature for women, I can't suggest any clear criteria for what should be included. In contrast, the existing head category Category:Literature by women is unambiguous. - Fayenatic(talk) 07:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fayenatic. Dsp13 (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2011 (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:Keep for now; this does not set a precedent if there is a wider nomination. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators rationale this is an encyclopedia not a dictionary. We should categorize things based on what they are, not the origin of the word that describes them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a quick look suggests that there is an extensive category tree for Category:Loanwords. I agree that the category covers their relationships (or origins) rather than 'what they are' but that is probably a pedantic point - I don't think that is sufficient to throw away what could be a useful tool. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, consider wider nomination of the entire loanwords category tree to be listified. - Fayenatic(talk) 06:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You obviously have not tried any gigantic nominations. they take for ever and just cause lots of people to come and oppose them. We should consider the merits of the case at hand, and I think the merits are that we do not categorize by name but by traits of the thing. This is not pedantic, it is one of the underlying rules of categorizing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would say that getting more opinions is the point of consultation. Perhaps WP:RFC would be a suitable place for a wider manageable discussion. But if we have it your way, let's try to anticipate any valid arguments that "lots of people" might bring.
Category:Loanwords has about 40 sub-categories by languages. The sub-sub-cats for ethnonyms and personal names are strongly justifiable, and perhaps the toponyms, but as these have other parent categories for "Fooian words and phrases", they would not be left orphaned if "loanwords" categories were listified and deleted. Arguably, they are different from loanwords anyway.
Getting back to the French case, two current sub-cats should not be in it: for Burlesque and Film noir, the main articles rather than the categories should be categorised, if anything.
Looking up to the parent Category:French words and phrases brings in some wider questions: many articles among the contents are French loanwords. The phrases are generally discussed as phrases, so categorisation by their French origin is helpful. Perhaps all the words (rather than phrases) are candidates to be recategorised into French loanwords. Picking some at random from both categories, then, I find again and again that the origin of the name is discussed within the article, e.g. Bain-marie#Origin, Bayonet#History, Bidet#History and Brioche#Etymology, so the French origin remains significant, a defining characteristic. I therefore conclude that keep is the correct outcome. - Fayenatic(talk) 20:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: redlink record label —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the label does not merit an article, no reason to categorize its albums.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:14, 26 July 2011 (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.
Keep Hostess Comic Ads that ran in Comics between 1975 and 1982, and is one of the most iconic ad campaigns in comic book history. There are dozens of blogs and tributes to the Hostess Comic Ads on the web. Wikipedia only has one mention of it on the Hostess Brand page. I have collected over 300 unique Hostess Comic Ads and am trying to create a comprehensive list based on appearances in those ads.--Imapaqrat (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Imapaqrat. I think sometimes there are issues that may appear to be overcat to some people, but if you are involved in those sort of interests, you find out it's really not. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Over catting is the lease of the issues. At this point it is being applied beyond "characters" and almost all the articles lack any mention of the Hostess ad campaign and adding such would be trivial at best to those articles. The list article the creator is working on, if properly sourced, is sufficient. - J Greb (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial connections between characters. BOVINEBOY2008 03:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one-man crusade, sourced primarily to his own original research on his own websites (which host copyright violations). --Orange Mike | Talk 13:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnecessary, trivial, and in the end, nothing but promotion for the category creator's Facebook page. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:30, 24 July 2011 (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 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.
Category:Tiber River to Category:Tiber — C2.D A rename instating concordance of category and article naming: rejected as being speedy-able, but the principle remains: category names should follow page names. Substantive discussions should be at the talk pages of the latter. Ian Spackman (talk) 09:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is more important to have unambiguous terms in cat names and Tiber is an ambiguous term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The reason I opposed this at speedy rename was this discussion, where renaming to Category:Tiber was rejected. I personally think such a move would be appropriate, given that the main article is Tiber. But as a compromise Category:Tiber (river) was suggested late in the last discussion and it may be worth consideration. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A look at Tiber (disambiguation) shows the river is easily the most notable 'Tiber' there is (so WP page Tiber is about the river), disambiguation is not needed here. Mayumashu (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, the primary meaning seems strong enough to me. - Fayenatic(talk) 20:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category. Two of the four links are redirects, and the other two are already in the parent category "Fictional Twins" Fortdj33 (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No good reason to subdivide the cat "Ficitonal twins".John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional twins is a very large category, it makes sense that if we have multiple articles about fictional twins that share a factor in common (such as being in the same series, such as Joes) that subcategories will help narrow things down. AweCo (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The twins are one article. Why should a category be devoted to one article? Curb Chain (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I had 4 pages in that category, 2 were removed already. They were Zandar and Zarana, the male and female twin siblings of the more well-known villain Zartan. I will check to see why they were removed, but basically we have 3 pages right now about GI Joes twins (enough to warrant a category I think) and I put it on the redirects to avoid cluttering the Tomax and Xamot page. AweCo (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Was this category created to hold the one set of GI Joe twins, or are there others that have not been added/do not presently have an article. Either way I think we should delete to category, but if it is the former case then we really, really, really should delete the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As above, there are at least 2 sets of twins in GI Joes. The psychic brothers and the brother/sister of Zartan. AweCo (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep links being redirects should not exclude them from inclusion in categories. Many characters' names redirect to combined pages, and others direct to list pages. Redirects still belong in categories because even if a character does not have their own article, they belong in categories. We must put categories specific to individual characters on their redirects because it wouldn't make sense to put it on a list page. For example "male thieves" would belong on Locke's redirect, not "FF6 characters" because not every FF6 character is a male thief. AweCo (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, per WP:RCAT, most redirects should not be categorized. To answer John Pack Lambert's question, this category was created for 4 specific G.I. Joe characters, all of whom are already listed in Category:Fictional twins. Two of the four characters, Tomax and Xamot are covered by the same article, yet this subcategory was added to more than one redirect for that article. I removed the subcategory from the other two characters, and to my knowledge there are no other characters that this category would pertain to. I am a strong advocate of G.I. Joe articles on Wikipedia, but I do not think there needs to be a separate subcategory for just these 3 articles. Fortdj33 (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2011 (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.
Australia national association football team[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:No consensus on the main issue; rename to "soccer" in line with recent decisions. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Australia has two major senior team's: A men's team and a women's team. Both senior teams (Socceroos and Matildas) need to be gender identified to acknowledge this. At the same time, the categories need to have a gender to make the naming patterns consistent with that of the women's team, and the ability to categorise it. --LauraHale (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)}}[reply]
Rename if there is a men's team and a women's team we should reflect that in the naming. To refer to the men's team as just the "National Team" stikes me as the extreme of gender bias.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with the principle, but you need to rename the main article first and the category will follow. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 03:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will do a rename proposal for the article. --LauraHale (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2011 (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:No rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators rationale The general consensus on wikipedia is to use sportspeople or sportsmen or sportswomen when refer to those who play sports. Athletes is reserved for those involved in track and field. I created many of these categories and may have been the first one to create this confusion, and definantly I have perpetuated it when I should have known better. I will try to add other related categories to this nomination, but this seems like a worthwhile start.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Oppose. JPL, you are screwing with very well established American college sports categories. Leave well enough alone. Please. As I explained below, Americans do not generally refer to athletes as sportspeople or sportspersons. We call them "athletes," and the term encompasses far more than just the track and field "athlete" typical of British usage. These are not combined categories of "sportspeople," but are particular to American college sports.Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCategory:Arizona Wildcats is in Category:College sports teams in the United States and Category:College sports teams in Arizona. Lastly, nominations are not "messing with" anything, they are a way to allow discussion and to come to a more regularized consensus on how things should be. I will go through and add all the relevant categories here in the hope of getting the widest possible discussion and avoiding the results of a top-level disccion that does not involve the sub-cats that will eventually be drawn in by the implications.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This name change has not been thought out well. The term "sportspeople" applies to coaches and athletic directors too. The purpose of these "athlete" categories is to group players of sports. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A study of the various American sportspeople categories reveals that most of the categories in them are for players/participants in sports and not for no player people connected with sports. This might not be universally the case but it seems to generally be the way the term is used.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to Jweiss11's point that "sportspeople" includes coaches, athletic directors, equipment managers, golf caddies, sports businesspeople, racehorse owners and breeders, sports officials, lifeguards, etc., the "sportspeople" category also currently holds competitors in non-athletic events (I'd argue that they're not sports) like checkers (draughts), backgammon, bridge, spelling bees, go, and Magic: The Gathering. cmadler (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Then it's those other categories you are using as a benchmark that need to be changed, not the ones nominated above. When the NCAA talks about student athletes, they're not talking about only track and field competitors. They are talking about players of all sports. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The tagging is taking longer than I anticipated. I will try to come back latter and tag the other cats, but if someone else wants to feel free. I stuck in a few Big 10 teams out of alphabetical order on the theory those are more likely to be wathced cat pages and this will give people an earlier notice of the discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In the world of U.S. college sports, the term "athletes" is almost universally used, and the terms "sportspeople" almost never. The participants in all college sports (not just track and field) are, as Jweiss observed, referred to as "student athletes." The regulatory organization for all college sports (not just track and field) is the National College Athletic Association. The person in charge of overseeing sports at American universities is called the "athletic director". The departments at American universities through which sports are managed are called "athletic departments." The categories in these cases should follow the common usage and refer to American college athletes as "athletes." Cbl62 (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stick with the mostly commonly used term. "Athletes" is the term used by reliable sources, not "sportspeople." —Ute in DC (talk) 07:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Athlete" is a common and well-understood term, referring unambiguously to the actual sports competitors. If it ever was originally confined to track and field participants, it has long since moved beyond that narrow meaning in both colloquial and official use. The proposed substitute "sportspeople" is vague, not commonly understood to refer to "athletes", and overbroad. Not only would it seem to include, as prior posters have noted, the coaches and ADs but conceivably equipment people as well. Even the spectators themselves, if sufficiently enthusiastic, can probably claim the term for themselves. Finally in its most common uses in the U.S., it appears to refer to activities that are regarded loosely as "sports" but which have little or no actual athletic component. Think, "American Sportsman" - which was a show all about fishing; and the "Sportsman Channel" - a cable channel devoted to hunting and fishing. It's just the wrong word. JohnInDC (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The American term (and 95% of college athlete categories deal with American institutions) is "athletes." This is not a well-thought out idea and went through no consensus process with any of the college sports projects on WP. Rikster2 (talk) 11:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per JohnInDC and others. cmadler (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others' reasons above, but I think Cbl62 summed it up best. Even the NCAA has the word athletic in it. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is not looking like this will succeed. I have therefore decided against spending the time it would take to nominate the remaining two-thirds of the relevant cats. If it does succeed, we can then nominate the other two thids of the relevant cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2011 (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:Florida Gators track and field athletes[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.
Nominators rationale. The biggest reason to do this is that the parent article Florida Gators track and field is not seperated along gender lines. While individual track and field competitions are often limited to only one of the genders, the competition overall involves people from both genders. This seems to be a distinction that is not really made.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. First, virtually all athletes are distinguished by gender; track and field athletes are no exception. Men do NOT compete against women in track and field, and the university has two teams: one for women and one for men. Neither the SEC nor the NCAA host androgynous track and field championships. Second, the gender separation parallels all other categories of Florida Gators athletes. If merged, this would be the only combined gender category of Gators athletes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the unsigned above statement is fully reflective of reality what needs to be done is the parent article needs to be split in two, and several other categories in Category:College track and field athletes in the United States need to be subdivided. Gators may gender seperate, but the vast majority of other college teams do not. Anyway, while there are championships are seperated by gender, my impression is that most meets are held jointly with both male and female participants. If I am wrong on this, than we probably should keep this seperate, but we most definantly should also seperate out all other school related categories. Even more scary is that we probably should rename Category:Florida Gators athletes to Category:Florida Gators sportspeople, but I just am not feeling up to the huge complexed tree of name changes that will involve, but I think I will have to be the one to do it, if for no other reason than that I am largely responsible for creating the mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Comment. The Florida Gators track and field article has been a benignly neglected article. For the first and only time in the history of the two Gators track teams, they currently share a common coaching staff. Mike Holloway has been the head coach of both teams for the last four years, as well as the head coach of the men's and women's cross country teams, too. So, there is some logic for maintaining a combined article for the time being. However, at such time as the current head coach, Mike Holloway, retires or leaves the program, there is likely to be a separation of the teams' administration again. Please keep in mind that the men's and women's teams have their own history, records, etc., and participate in separate college conference (SEC) and national college (NCAA) championships, as do all other Florida Gators sports team of the University of Florida (and virtually all other American universities' sports teams). The only combined-gender American college sports teams I'm aware of are bowling and riflery; the University of Florida does not field a team in either of those sports.
BTW, in American usage, "athlete" includes "sportspeople" from all sports, not just track and field. It's British usage to call the sport of track and field "athletics." On this side of the pond, athletics includes all sports, and the British distinction would not be readily understood by Americans reading these college sports categories. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all the proposed changes, with the possible exception of separating the article into two. Technically that probably should eventually be split into two articles, but it's not unreasonable to group together two related topics into a single article until enough can be written to merit splitting them. The whole thing probably started as a section of Florida Gators -- this is how articles naturally grow and develop. cmadler (talk) 12:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per comments that female and male competition in sports are entirely separate. But, in answer the nominator's point that the parent cat does not distinguish, a good find - sub-parent cats, namely Category:College track and field female athletes in the United States (I guess - so long, tricky to get order correct), and one for guys too, need to be started up Mayumashu (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Should we have cross country athletes mixed in with track and field athletes when they are distinct sports, distinct teams, and the teams have distinct articles?John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is there a way to nominate cats for splitting? That is what needs to be done with the parent cats and various sisters cats, but I am not sure where to find a notification template for splitting.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2011 (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.
Nominators rationale this category seems to run afoul of WP:Cat/gender. There does not seem to be well established discussions of the roles of women in accounting.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no reason to divide the sexes in accounting Curb Chain (talk) 07:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Presently there is a discussion going on about reforming Category:Women by occupation, the parent category. I think that ideas about deleting whole subcats in this section in one brash move should be avoided until we have come to a consensus about what we will be doing to this category and its subcategories. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Henriettapussycat, pending the outcome of the other discussion. I personally think it is deletion-worthy, but it's not productive to debate subcategories when the parent category is under debate. cmadler (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are multiple reasons to debate subcats even while parent cats are in debate. To start with the parent cat is allowed by WP:Cat/gender. At the same time that rule means that specific subcats need to exist on issues specific to them. No one has argued that there is any reason to seperate accountants by gender, other than we are doing it already, which is according to the relevant rule not a sufficient reason. Secondly, the discussion is not about "reforming" the occupation by gender cats, it is about deleting them. The problem is that it is only covering the parent cat and as we have seen on multiple Cfds recently a consensus to delete a parent cat (sometimes only the result of a nomination and no one at all saying anything else on the matter) will often be challenged when there are attempts to apply it to subcats that people tend more often to pay attention to. Basically, if the Women by occupation cats are kept it still does not create a precedent to keep this specific cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know for you the discussion is not about reforming the category (especially a discussion you haven't taken part in), but for several people it is about reforming the category. There are a lot of people who have a personal stake in these categories and women's history in general on Wikipedia. We want to take a closer look at these categories before wiping them all out in one swift blow. There are conversations going on in two places about the categories that deal with women in the workforce. Women's history does exist, and the category does need special thought. This might not be your opinion, but several people on Wikipedia have shown to really care about this issue and what we are trying to do here. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have yet to see anyone argue that we should seperate out women accountants. If people can not justify that than I think we should delete this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also think it is important to note there is no article Women in accounting. If there is an article on this subject I have not been able to find it. If people really care about the history of women in specific professions they should create articles on the topic, not start grouping females in the particular profession into categories. I do know that there is no requirement that an article exist before you create a category, however in some cases it might be a good idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Accountants – as far as I know there is no difference whatever in accounting methods employed by women and men. The existence of the other cfd is immaterial (as none of the subcats were tagged in the other discussion): some gendered subcats are valid (eg sportswomen, who mostly do not compete with men), for which the supercat should be retained, and other subcats are not valid and should be deleted, eg this one. Occuli (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the grounds that the number of women achieving notability as accountants is relatively few to date. - Fayenatic(talk) 06:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the criteria at all. There has to be clear study of the intersection of gender and the profession, not just very little intersection. I could say the same thing to justify having Category:female janitors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's an ongoing hot topic, e.g. this search] in a UK accounting journal. Women accountants reaching the top level are even more rare than in Law. In the trade press on janitors, articles on the gender gap would probably be about equal pay rather than individual high-flyers; not the same thing at all, as no scope for a category. - Fayenatic(talk) 20:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: googling women in accounting suggests general interest in, and published scholarship on, the topic of Women in accounting, and I hope we will have the article soon. Dsp13 (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I don't like the idea of separating by gender for contemporary women, but there is scholarship (such as this book) that deals with women in accounting as a topic of women's history. A more thoughtful search will turn up sections of other books that deal with the entry of women into the profession, such as the multi-decade struggle of Mary Harris Smith for admission to the ICAEW (see Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, p.14 and Women in the Accounting Professionp. 228). Under WP:Cat gender, the category may qualify as "a topic of special encyclopedic interest" supported by RS. My concern is that deletion campaigns against all gender categorization are an obstacle to achieving the WP Foundation's stated aim of involving more women as editors, and improving the coverage of women and so-called "women's" topics. The historical circumstances of women in business and trade are quite different from our contemporary ideals, and as a verifiable topic of history can't be excluded because of our own political views or personal feelings. There's been some discussion of the problem of historical perspective vs. contemporary gender parity at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History#Evolving the women by occupation category.. I don't know how to resolve this effectively. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge or Delete. Nothing in the discussion explains why this is defining for these women. That is the bar for making this a category. The fact that there may be articles on the topic does not transfer to women addressed in that article. I would really like to see how being female changes how you do accounting. The discussion on Category:Women by occupation really does not affect this discussion. The parent category does not mean every possible subcategory is justified. BTW, I never knew that being a Duchess is an occupation! Vegaswikian (talk) 06:52, 28 July 2011 (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.
Dancing with the Starts (Australian TV series) participants[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.
Nominators rationale We do not categorize actors by movie/TV show/play/ other production they appeared in. It does not make sense to do so here, especially since some of these people are known primarily for being other things, such as a rower.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I thought we had just deleted this by consensus, but no, that was for the U.S. equivalent category. I don't think any of these people gained their notability by being on this programme. They were "stars" beforehand, which is the whole point, I gather. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:18, 21 July 2011 (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.
Delete per deletion of other exonerated categories Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. There is no general Category:Picnic places or Category:Picnicking places, and unless picnicking is a highly regulated activity in Pakistan that can only occur in specially designated picnic zones, I don't think we want to have a category such as this. There are a lot of things one can do in a public park (get your head out of the bushes, people), and we don't need to have a category for each of them. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or in other words, excessively narrow categoryCurb Chain (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as picnicing categories are not convential. Lol @ John Pack Lambert's humourous comment :) Mar4d (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is not a defining characteristic of a visitor attraction. - Fayenatic(talk) 16:21, 21 July 2011 (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:Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename we disambiguate The Sun in part because there are multiple papers with this name, so this is a very reasonable move.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Sure. Rd232talk 08:22, 21 July 2011 (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.
