< April 24	April 26 >

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:American male writers to Category:American writers

Nominator's rationale: Subcategory was created today—yesterday the pages were in Category:American writers which seems fine. I propose that the pages be upmerged back to where they were and the new category deleted. Quale (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with there being a male and female writer category, but only if there is a writer category that includes both. I'm not okay with there being a writer category and a female category. If the current American writer category is too long, then so be it... let it be long.Sgerbic (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• See my comment in Category:British male writers. The notion that if we have "women" we must also have "men" is based on an idea that Wikipedia categorization is about gender equality. It is not. It is based on defining attributes in culturally relevant and important topics that users will want to use. --Lquilter (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep About 600 entries and scope for expansion. That is all a category needs to survive. Dimadick (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no. A category needs an acceptable rationale to exist to begin with. --Lquilter (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Gender is a very common and widely accepted way of making massive categories manageable; that is an acceptable rationale. I would not support merging anything into Category:American writers, considering it currently contains nearly 3000 entries and is therefore barely useful as a category. Neelix (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Per lengthy main discussion at Category:American women novelists. The fall-out of that discussion is going to impact many other categories including this one. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but close to conform to discussion on Category:American women novelists. Since women and men tend to address slightly different subjects, I consider that gender is appropriate for a split here: certainly for novelists, but not journalists. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is simply over-categorization at its worst -- and the idea that female writes somehow do not belong in the general category is simply sexist in any case. Collect (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it was demonstated in the lower down discussion that there has been academic study of the intersection of men and writing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is real and serious discussion of it, then I'm in favor of keeping it. I'm a bit leery, however, because of the tendency of people to create false equivalencies and post-hoc rationales. It doesn't have to be as big a topic as "women writers" to be justified -- but it does have to be a real topic and not just an effort on the part of men's rights advocates to make a point. --Lquilter (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There have been articles with titles like "Out of Bounds: Male Writers and Gender(ed) Criticism", so it seems that the intersection of being male and being a writer has been covered.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course there have been some publications about it. Is it a real enough field of study that a head article can be written on the topic? For something that we would consider a scholarly discipline, what would we look for -- 10, a hundred, articles on a particular topic? Consider Category:Women writers, about which there are certainly thousands of anthologies, just for starters. I have probably thirty on my shelves just of women science fiction writers, and another dozen of women poets, and I am not remotely completist. Women writers have been the subject of several journals / reviews dedicated just to women writers, numerous professional writers organizations, gobs of dissertations .... etc. Obviously it doesn't have to be comparable to the full-fledged scholarly discipline that "women writers" is but there's got to be enough to write an article. Are you saying there is? I don't personally feel qualified to make that assertion. --Lquilter (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously - we have Category:Men's_studies, there are journals on the topic of men's studies, and in a quick google search I found 10 books on the topic of men and writing on the first page. It's not anywhere near the production of Women's studies, but it's certainly a topic of scholarly study, and a head article could easily be written. To me one of the interesting things about this whole debate is people assume that male+writer is not an interesting or relevant or scholarly or written-about subject - which is stunning to me, given the evidence available to anyone who looks - it highlights how Women's studies has dominated Gender studies to the exclusion of the male - perhaps for good reason but times are changing... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Men's studies" is not the same thing as "American male writers". The question is not "men's studies": It's male writers as, if you will, a studied or referenced cultural construct. I agree that "men's studies" is enough of a popular study that it ought to have a head article. The question is whether male writers is, and I'm not as certain about that, but that could be because I'm simply not an expert in the field.

I note in passing that the standards for inclusion of an article are "notability", which is lower than the standards for creation of a category, which is "defining". So even if there is some study of "male writers" qua "male writers", is there enough study & recognition of the concept that we can consider it a "defining" attribute? Or is it going to just be category clutter that will make the categories on an individual page harder to navigate?

... As for the rest of your comment: To me, the questions about whether gender studies "ought" to be about men or women or both or something else, is an academic question that has zero relevance to a discussion of categorizing Wikipedia pages according to (a) defining attributes, and (b) commonly used concepts/categories. It's an interesting conversation to have in, say, a salon or an academic classroom or in a discussion forum. I realize it's interesting to a lot of people, but Wikipedia categorization is not the place to make a point about how things "should be" in the real world of scholarship & reader's interests. --Lquilter (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided elsewhere references to several books specifically about male writing - a quick google search found a few dozen. And this is besides the massive literature that existed before, where "male" was sort of assumed. So, yes, I do think "male writing" and "male writers" is worthy of categorization, if we decided to go this route.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's exclude the "assumed-male" scholarship / commentary, since the "maleness" may not have been an axis of understanding. I'm not totally convinced it's a for-real thing, but I think the ways that the scholarship are going, it will be a for-real thing soon if it's not already, and it's better to give it the benefit of the doubt. ... Maybe you could start the article and plug-in some of these cites you've found? --Lquilter (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Does it work to have this category use "Male" while we have Category:American women writers?John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If neither "male writers" or "men writers" flow trippingly to the tongue then it sort of suggests it's not as much of a "thing" as "women writers" is. --Lquilter (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's not. Probably never will be as much of a "thing", but it is nonetheless a "thing" --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If we do merge this we should do so manually, since many of the articles are in sub-cats of Category:American writers and to just straight-up merge it would create a totally mess, sort of like what we got in Category:American musicians when we merged Category:American musicians of Italian descent and a bunch of similar categories into it without paying attention to the fact that most of its contents were in sub-cats. Also, for what it is worth I just added another child cat to this category, Category:American male singer-songwriters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's clear that this is part of a larger conversation that cannot be resolved on any one category discussion. I'd like to refer folks to a relevant proposal for "Category intersection" searching (at Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection) that could resolve this issue to everyone's interests. Really. --Lquilter (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now, as a intersection which is itself an encyclopedic topic per WP:CATGRS.
  I agree with Lquilter and others that the time is long overdue for a form of dynamic category intersection to replace this appalling crude system of manually-populated static intersections. We should have Category:Novelists, Category:Men and Category:American people, and software should allow the reader to create the intersection on the fly ... but until then, please don't demolish what we have so far. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But our current guidelines discorage putting people in a category like men. We have Category:American women with a specific guideline to not put any biographical articles there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean our current guidelines. If dynamic category intersection is implemented, then those guidelines will need to be radically revised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:25, 23 May 2013 (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 consensus to delete, but I am going to rename it to Category:British male novelists, so at least people can stop laughing at Wikipedia for that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:British men novelists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not only is "men" not usually used in this way (we would usually say "male"), but Wikipedia does not usually classify people by gender unless it is relevant (e.g. in occupations where gender roles are very different or in which people of one gender are vastly more common than those of the other). -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Close Please don't try to solve this problem piecemeal. You are nominating Category:British men novelists but leaving out Category:English_women_writers and lots of others besides. Please wait for some sort of consensus to form on the other, much larger discussion, then we can put together a proper nomination to fix the rest of the novelist/artist/writer/actor/dancer/etc trees. Doing this one category at a time is a bad idea. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And where, pray, is the "other, much larger discussion"? No point making a comment like this and then not providing a link, is there? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant this one: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_24#Category:American_women_novelists. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a direct brother to Category:British women novelists and a sub-cat of Category:British men by occupation. If we can use nationality + women + occupation, there is no reason not to use men. Anyway, the main thrust of the delete proposal seems to actually be a rename one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A brother or a sister? Is there anything you don't see in gendered terms? Drmies (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, it's a delete one. There is already a Category:British novelists and since there is only a single individual in this category that can be remerged into the proper category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as a pair with the women novelists (it's "men and women" or "male and female"), or delete both of them — it's not helpful to categorise women but not as men. Nyttend (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The arguments above for "delete or keep both" miss the point that categorization does not need to be symmetrical. We do not categorize about gender just because we care about gender; we categorize about gender where it is a salient and defining attribute of the person's professional identity. This is demonstrated by the existence of common and academic uses of the concept. In Wikipedia we ask, "Can you write a head article for the category?" So for example, "women scientists" is the subject of many, many studies, organizations, and so forth: popular books, academic research, professional societies and organizations. Women in science has a long and well-referenced article. And so "women scientists" is a useful category.
  
  ... Put another way, we are not categorizing out of general notions of "equal treatment of the sexes under Wikipedia's category system". We are categorizing based on defining attributes of the subject, under which users of the encyclopedia would reasonably expect to find the subject. Users of Wikipedia would look for "British novelists", and within that category they would expect and should find both male and female writers. Users of Wikipedia would also look for "British women novelists", because that is a popular cultural topic separate from "women novelists" or "British novelists". When and if "British male novelists" becomes a popular cultural topic, separate from "British novelists" more generally, then it should definitely become its own category. --Lquilter (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point in theory, but this hasn't proven itself out in practice - and it ends up leading to (perceived or not) ghettoization of women, and reinforcement of the male as the norm. While I realize that your arguments have merit and have informed the policy to date, I think the result for the wiki is just messy and will only lead to future ill-informed NY times articles. If we're going to categorize by gender, let's do so fully.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Women are not ghettoized if they are also categorized in the appropriate gender-neutral category. This is, in fact, what the categorization guidelines specify. --Lquilter (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - and like I said, it's an interesting idea in theory - but it hasn't worked out in practice, and the nuances of the way you think things should be bubbled up have not translated (nor are ever likely to) to practice. I could send you a few links to category intersection tools that will show you how it looks in practice; I bet I could easily find 100,000 biographies that are not categorized as we would like in theory. For one, why is there a special exception? Why do women get bubbled up to the gender neutral category, but mystery writers do not? E.g. why, in the list of all things we categorize people by, ethnicity/gender/sexuality has special rules? Why not nationality? Or epoch? Or field of study/specialization? As you can see from the massive arguments and NY times article etc, the result is actually confusion.

There's a second *major* issue - you have the intersection of these two problems - since we always sub-cat by theme say, so if some women aren't in Category:American novelists but in a lower-level cat, they haven't been ghettoized at all - they are sitting there next to their male mystery writer buddies - in which case they *shouldn't* be bubbled up. Otherwise you have a weird exceptionalism - a female mystery writer would be in 3 cats (Women novelists, mystery writers, and american novelists), while a male mystery writer would only be in one! (mystery writers). You can't make the argument more generic (e.g. always bubble up), because then the question is, how high? Novelists are a type of writer, so are you ghettoizing someone by calling them a novelist? Shouldn't they also be bubbled up to the writer category? As soon as you start putting people in sub cats and parent cats, it becomes hard to know when to stop - how far up the tree should you go? At which point does it branch? This is why I would argue actually the best course is either (1) don't split by gender, let a list handle that - or (2) if you split by gender, split by both, and diffuse - so no-one is in the top-level cat (or at least, the top-level cat acts as a holding bin until people are diffused below. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genre is really pretty different from gender/ethnicity and other identity categories. Nationality -- I'm not personally persuaded that nationality should be treated as one of the fundamental dividing blocks of Wikipedia, but it is, and in every respect. So nationality has its very own special rules. We have numerous examples of "types" of category classes, and when it is appropriate to intersect them. We have managed to handle it pretty well so far. As for your slippery slope arguments, I would just say that for the most part the existence of gender- and identity-based categories has not created an apocalypse of categories. Except for the gender- and identity-based categories themselves, which people often object to for reasons that are not just about categorizing, but about politics.

I feel your pain about wrong and ad hoc categorizing. But "wrongness" and "ad hocness" are endemic in Wikipedia in all sorts of formatting issues. It's really just how it is with an openly-editable encyclopedia. New users and editors are simply not going to understand how to apply categories, or templates, or understand subheadings or ledes or images. Established users go around and clean them up based on our policies and experiences with the mediawiki software and what works, and what doesn't work. The category system is a bit clunky and not as flexible as it would be in an ideal world, so we have a variety of patched-together policies that nonetheless accomplish several important goals. (1) Provide readers with categories that match commonly-sought-for concepts, like "women writers"; (2) Provide readers with navigations through the categories based on hierarchies; and (3) Restrict the total number of categories in ways that are "defining" to the subject of the article so that the system is useful on any one article.

Elimination of "women writers" and "male ballet dancers" and that sort of thing will not serve readers well, even though editors might like it because it is "neater" in terms of categories and policies. Addition of gender-balanced categories that readers don't really look for is not as bad as eliminating, but they not be as useful because they're not what users look for, and they will be harder to maintain because users won't think to add them. But it's not as bad a solution as deleting the categories that people want to use. --Lquilter (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lquilter's comment is well-stated and helps my understanding of the subject.

Categorizing "fully" is, IMO, a non-optimal solution, for the reasons stated. However it is likely that equal treatment would have avoided the media controversy. It was the inconsistency that really annoyed people. Avt tor (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There's nothing in the cat, and was only created in response to the women's novelist category brouhaha currently under discussion.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Empty category. No matter the subject, this is always a bad sign. Dimadick (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The category was just created. If I had tried to popualte it more than I did, than I would be attacked for that. All categories were empty at one point. The fact that the category is empty now means nothing, because there are clearly many articles that could be put in it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Milowent's statement above is really odd, since that is the editor who emptied the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its not odd, its easily verifiable that I emptied this category that you created in a pointy reaction to the ongoing controversy being discussed elsewhere. This category is a farce.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit to violating the clear directive of the CfD nomination to not empty the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not create this category "in a pointy reaction to the ongoing controversy", I created this category after someone else created Category:American men novelists on the theory that it made no sense to have only one men novelists by nationality category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but close to conform to discussion on Category:American women novelists. Since women and men tend to address slightly different subjects, I consider that gender is appropriate for a split here: certainly for novelists, but not journalists. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and "conforming" is a weak arguemnt where the case is of over-categorization. Collect (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not defining. Neutrality^talk 07:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Whether the categories are empty or full is completely irrelevant to this conversation, because editors and novice editors brought in by the media attention have been going back and forth and edit warring (even without realizing it sometimes). It's clear that this is part of a larger conversation that cannot be resolved on any one category discussion. I'd like to refer folks to a relevant proposal for "Category intersection" searching (at Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection) that could resolve this issue to everyone's interests. Really. --Lquilter (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:British novelists. Novelists are too functionally a bottom rung category and gender is not central enough to novelists to make it worth splitting at the bottom rung (I would argue it is central enough to modeling to make such a split worth while, but not writing).John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Mainly because we kept Category:American women novelists. I am not sure if such categories by gender for novelists are useful outside of the US and British novelists cats, but they are in those two.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now, as a intersection which is itself an encyclopedic topic per WP:CATGRS.
  I agree with Lquilter and others that the time is long overdue for a form of dynamic category intersection to replace this appalling crude system of manually-populated static intersections. We should have Category:Novelists, Category:Men and Category:American people, and software should allow the reader to create the intersection on the fly ... but until then, please don't demolish what we have so far. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:17, 14 May 2013 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:County law enforcement agencies of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category doesn't fit conveniently with the county government category. I had attempted to organize around it, but a certain editor is making an issue of it. I believe that perhaps this or some similar category could fit at some time in the future, but for now it does not. What counts as a law enforcement agency? Don't parks department enforce laws? How about probation departments? Should the district attorney's offices be included? I think these issues are best resolved after we get the rest organized. Greg Bard (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For informational purposes on this nomination, please read these discussions: Here, And Here, and This One. There has been considerable talk page discussions regarding this subject matter. — Maile (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I can't see the problem. County police and sheriffs' departments are county law enforcement agencies and are usually referred to as county law enforcement agencies. Being inconvenient for a separate categorisation scheme is not a good reason to delete a perfectly good category which makes perfect sense within the law enforcement agency categorisation scheme (i.e. municipal, county, state and federal). -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What counts as a law enforcement agency is fairly well-defined; we have a whole article about it. I don't see how it doesn't fit into the county government category; county law enforcement agencies are an agency of county government, and at any rate, that's no argument for getting rid of the whole category. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG Keep. There is no issue from a functional perspective at all. IF I pay taxes and I ELECT the local Sheriff, and I VOTE on monies to repair the LOCAL roads, its local. Is there a State Agency or law or constitution that grants these rights, possibly, yes. However, if there were no people, no voting, no problems, in other words a non populated Utopia, I would agree. BUT it aint so. This entire thing is like asking the Latitude and Longitude of the Wreck of the Hesparus or whats 3 miles North of the North Pole.HINT moaning about an editor, NOT the best way to approach a category deletion........Coal town guy (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG Keep. POINTy. — Maile (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• As I pick myself off the floor after LMAO, Keep. Clearly there are articles that belong in this category. While I will admit that the interpretation of what is and is not a LEO is somewhat open, it is defined. So, yes, the county DA's investigators could well be a LEO depending on state/county/city/village/town/whatever law. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BUT THATS NOT ALL Assuming we did change this. Then what. How granular do the categories become? They would literally be useless or rather the categories would exceed the number of articles. Think about it. Openly Gay albino former baseball coaches with a speech defect who grew up left handed but were corrected in school to be right handed and were elected locally at the permission of the bipartisan tri annual meeting of the state level comittee allowed by section 3 paragraph 4 sentence 2 etc etc etc IS NOT a useful category. It would literally change per office, per state and per county equivalent. As there are over 3,000 recognized county equivalents in the US alone, it would be a freakish task. In short, totally useless. OR, the reverse, we would have a SUPER category called Nouns. Last I checked, there are alot of nouns...Coal town guy (talk) 02:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as perfectly valid category. Law enforcement is widely understood to be a government function, county government is a recognized level of government in the United States, and the category is well-populated. If the nominator wishes to refine the definition of "law enforcement" at Wikipedia, it would make sense to initiate discussion with the members of WikiProject Law Enforcement. Deleting a category hierarchy that has existed for 5 years is not demonstrated to be an effective way to initiate productive discussion. --Orlady (talk) 04:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nothing wrong with this category, and the links provided here make me think that Greg's essentially declared war on the concept that there's local government in the USA. Nyttend (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a bit of a wild interpretation. I don't even claim that "County law enforcement agencies of the United States" aren't county agencies. My claim is that this level of refinement of categories isn't needed, and unhelpful. If it stays, that means extra work organizing the supra-category. I don't have a problem with that result, but I would rather accomplish that in a more organic way, not being forced to deal with nitpicking issues brought up by one editor who is hounding me. For the record: cities, towns and counties are forms of local government, but in the vast majority of cases (and I still haven't seen an exception), a county governing board is a state agency. We have an editor who fervently denies this, even in the face of overwhelming evidence (she is starting to remind me of a religious believer), and claims that **MY** claim is "unorthodox." However, it is not an unorthodox view among actual real academics and scholars of political science. The editor of whom I speak is an amateur and thinks their "common sense" view is infallible. Greg Bard (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a rather far-fetched claim that "a county governing board is a state agency". And many more than one editor that you imagine to be hounding you has disagreed with you about. older ≠ wiser 19:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gregbard, if you don't claim that "County law enforcement agencies of the United States" aren't county agencies, why did you begin to edit-war [1] [2] [3] to remove this category from parent categories relevant to county government? --Orlady (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because I had asked for your cooperation and you refused to give it. This whole issue would be completely unecessary if you could just wait a week before presuming to know how things should be immediately. If you would just BACK OFF, we could avoid a lot of problems you cause. Greg Bard (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Greg, but after your undiscussed manual category moves, your edit-warring at Category:County government in the United States in support of your theory that U.S. county government is not a level of local government, the discussions of that theory of yours (e.g., [4]), your negative characterizations of me (e.g., [5] and [6]), interactions over this category, and other recent involvements, I can't avoid paying attention to your work -- because it appears to me that you have the potential to cause a lot of damage (not even thinking about those peculiar errors introduced on my talk page), even at the same time that you are doing a great deal of productive work. You'll have to deal with it. --Orlady (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not having a Dale Carnegie day folks. I am stepping cback. Please accept my apologies, there was no need for me to react in that fashion. Again, I am most sorry as I am unable to be non emotive, I will uninvolve myself from further commentCoal town guy (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Coal town guy (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of comment is unhelpful. I suggest you redact. However wrong-headed Gregbard's actions might be, there is no reason to be uncivil. older ≠ wiser 00:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, quite useful and well defined. — Cirt (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The fact that some places have county police departments and some have county sherriffs, makes it logical to have this as a holding category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2013 (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: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Rollins College Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Rollins College

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Rollins College Wikipedians is a new category that is redundant to the existing category, Wikipedians by alma mater: Rollins College. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 21:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The category author has merged the categories. All that remains is to delete the (now empty) Category:Rollins College Wikipedians. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 21:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, now appears to be redundant at this point in time. — Cirt (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2013 (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 consensus to merge, but I am going to rename this to Category:American male novelists as suggested so at least people can stop laughing at Wikipedia for that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose merging Category:American men novelists to Category:American novelists

Nominator's rationale: In the wake of the controversy over Category:American women novelists, a new user created this unhelpful WP:POINTy category, compounding our problems. Merge. - Eureka Lott 18:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - does the same apply to Category:American male writers? --ukexpat (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE: This segregation by gender makes no sense for literary interests. Anyway, how will you handle writer’s pseudonyms which are opposite gender? You already have categories as to the type of writing. Women/Men split makes no sense. We are writers. Hill. Suns River — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.192.157 (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak MERGE. I don't think any users of the encylopedia are actually interested in a category of American Men Novelists, and that this category is being created simply to make a point. However, such a merge should wait until a consensus is reached on the Category talk:American novelists / Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 24 discussions. If that discussion results in a consensus that Category:American novelists should indeed be split into sub-categories by sex, then this should be kept.Geoffrey.landis (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Checking the parent categories of this category, I noticed something curious. Why do we have Category:American male writers, and Category:American men writers? Duplication? Dimadick (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have deleted Category:American men writers since it is a very recently created duplicate of Category:American male writers. The latter was created first by a matter of about four hours. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's empty, it's ridiculously named ("men novelists"?!), and it's turned Wikipedia into an international laughingstock because of the sexism involved. Softlavender (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep gender is an important factor for writers, and men writing novels is at least looked at as a group. This category should not have been depopulated without consensus.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• keep but rename to Category:American male novelists. I don't think this cat is WP:POINTY as the nom states - many commenters in the other discussion called for the creation of such a category. In any case, I don't know why everyone is going around nominating various random cats for deletion - there is a massive and high-profile discussion going on right now, can we just focus our efforts there and then once we get a rough consensus, then move on a broader set of fixes? This nomination is premature. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The category was only ever empty because some editors deleted all its contents instead of waiting for a decision at CfD. User:Avt tor did at least a large part of these deletions. I have notified him that he should not do deletions in this way, but he claims he is following the rules for such categorization by gender and is justified. It might help if some other editor would set him staight that he does not have the standing to enforce the rules unilaterally, and that the entire contents of a category up for discussion should not be removed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Factually untrue. Category was essentially empty (had two entries) when I first saw it. When it started to be populated after the controversy arose this week, that required a response. Avt tor (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. The legitimate response is to nominate it for merger or deletion, and seek a WP:CONSENSUS.
      The illegitimate response (which will get you blocked unless you desist) is to unilaterally pre-empt the outcome of the consenus-forming discussion, by emptying it unilaterally.
      The header on the category page says "Please share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress.". Which part of that standard notice is unclear to you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• keep You provided no proof that this is "an unhelpful WP:POINTy category". I see both categories as helpful and have no problems having all novelists sorted by gender, with no actual biographies in top level category. Merge discussion aside, those categories should be American male novelists/American female novelists, not American men novelists/American women novelists, for grammar's sake! Netrat (talk) 06:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's pointless to categorise people by gender unless their gender has a definite bearing on their role. In the case of writers it clearly does not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep As stated above, please sort out the issues regarding men/women, male/female. As for the WP:POINTy issue, this is often raised. We need consistency in Wikipedia, and that trumps any issues to do with "point". Incidentally, this problem doesn't just involve Americans, but other nationalities also. The name "women authors" seems to be often found in Wikipedia. I see no problem with "men authors" also. It has been stated that the present setup is sexist. As a male myself, I didn't think so at first. But now, I think it is. Be consistent, guys. We can do better! Wallie (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Bundle with the women category. I'm somewhat unsure whether we need either one, but there's no good reason to have one without the other. Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• See my comment in Category:British male writers. The notion that if we have "women" we must also have "men" is based on an idea that Wikipedia categorization is about gender equality. It is not. It is based on defining attributes in culturally relevant and important topics that users will want to use. --Lquilter (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – this gives Category:American men novelists and Category:American women novelists comparable status in the wikipedia category tree, addressing an apparent problem. (I have no objection to a rename.) Oculi (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm not that convinced that "male writers" are a separate area of study, but its parent category gained c. 600 entries in a single day. Convincing me that there is scope for expansion in this new category. Dimadick (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy depopulate and delete: For the love of god people, have you no decency? What's next dividing presidents into Category:Presidents and Category:Presidentess?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy depopulate and delete: This category has only been populated to promote the controversy. The articles were not in the category until media complaints emerged this week about labelling authors as "women novelists". This category is simply an attempt to justify gender-based marginalization. It is *highly inappropriate* for admins to support the recent population of this category. Avt tor (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow - such a violent reaction. I don't think you two are thinking straight. The subject of American male novelists has received coverage of it's own - for example sex and the American male novelist, Manliness and the male novelist in Victorian literature, salon's The Agony of the Male Novelist, and so on. So what you really have to defend, if you argue to delete, is not "why" this cat shouldn't be created now, or the intentions of it's creator, or any other terrible injustice you think is being done, but rather explain calmly, in the broader scheme of things - given that it's likely Category:American women novelists will continue to exist, how would you defend *not* having a corresponding male category - especially if there is an outrage if the women are removed from the Category:American novelists category. I personally think allowing lopsided categories based on gender to continue to exist is ridiculous - the world is a big, complex, and messy space, and if anyone says it's worth studying the experience of women in matter X, I can find evidence that it's worth studying the experience of men in matter X as well (and vice versa) - so our snap judgements and outrage (waaaaa they created a "men" category) only serve to further divide and fracture us. So why not try to argue on a policy basis, why this cat should not exist. Otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time with your drama. And please stop removing articles from this category - you cannot empty a category under discussion for deletion, no matter how you feel.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:CSD. There are no relevant speedy criteria to support deletion.
    Let the discussion run its course, and see what the consensus is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree: Some people are finding gender-based categorization to be harassing. That's why this hit the media. This category has only been populated this week to justify marginalization of women authors, and they are complaining about that. Allowing the new population of this category to go unchecked is a problem calling for swift action. Avt tor (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. Per my longer reply above ... the legitimate swift action is to nominate it for merger or deletion, and seek a WP:CONSENSUS.
      The illegitimate response (which will get you blocked unless you desist) is to unilaterally pre-empt the outcome of the consensus-forming discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it is wrong to "unilaterally pre-empt the outcome of the consensus-forming discussion", then you should not be doing so. Avt tor (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its fairly common to see content created in response to a big drama to be summarily dealt with. I don't know if its deemed WP:IAR or what, but its common sense. One editor substantially populated this category (which had maybe 50 articles at its height earlier today) with only the most famous novelists in American history, ones who happened to be males. I am sure he found it fun to do, but it should not be countenanced.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely and passionately hope that a media controversy will never be any grounds for deleting anything. A media shitstorm should of course be a reason to take a very rapid and careful look at something, but the decision should be made on the merits of the case, not on the fact that a journalist or two has decided to use a bully pulpit.

Sometimes, a media storm will draw our attention to something which meets the criteria for speedy deletion, and if you follow WP:ANI you will regularly see that some alert admin has acted promptly as soon as something came to hir attention. But neither you nor anyone else has identified any relevant speedy criteria here.

On other occasions, a consensus will rapidly form around a particular course of action, and that may lead to a WP:SNOWBALL close. So far as I can see, the discussion here is fairly evenly balanced, at least in terms of numbers. WP:NOTAVOTE, but it looks to me like it's far too warm for a snowball. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fifty?? That's ridiculous. We're letting one person push their view, but criticizing others for fixing the problem. Avt tor (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Avt, if you think that the existence of the category is a problem, then make the case for its merger or deletion. However, don't go depopulating it unless there is a consensus to do so.
The header on the category page says "Please share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress.". Which part of that standard notice is unclear to you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it were up to me, the category would be what it was when the discussion started and the discussion would proceed. That is not what has happened. One user is stuffing articles into the category during the discussion and one admin is supporting that user's side, ignoring the substantive discussion on the talk page for Category:American novelists. That is what is not WP:NPOV. Avt tor (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have a seriously bad case of WP:IDONTHEARYOU. It's not up to you. There is a community consensus that cats are not to be depopulated when under discussion, and it is also quite valid and accepted to populate those same cats, so as to give a better view of their eventual contents. Otherwise, if someone created a category that is nominated 2 minutes later for deletion, he wouldn't be allowed to add anything more to it to show the potential scope of the cat. That's why adding things is allowed, but deleting them is not. Now if you see someone adding a woman or a non-american or whatever else inappropriate to this cat feel free to revert, but if the subject matches the cat, you must keep it in. Read this: "Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision." from here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion. Frankly no-one cares that you're so angry and fired up about this - you're expected to follow the rules, plain and simple. BHG is completely right on this one.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For example if someone were to add George W. Bush, Bill Gates and a bunch of non-novelists to the category, then it would not be acceptable. I am quite glad to hear that Orson Scott Card is deemed to be in the top 50 American novelists, but somehow doubt that there is a consesnsus view to that effect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete- I have a lot of American novelists on my watch and tend a number of these pages. Would be nice to see these discussions conclude before editing the categories. There's absolutely no need for this category, it's pointy and unnecessary and so is the discussion. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. The discussion is needed because editors disagree, so we discuss the issue to reach a WP:CONSENSUS.
    You are entitled to your view that the categ is "pointy and unnecessary", but that's not a rationale; it's just an assertion. If you want to influence the outcome, you need to explain why you think that it is unnecessary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Assertion struck. Please stop being condescending and patronizing. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy depopulate. Rash reaction to media hype that is almost meaningless. Masculine authors simply aren't a realistic items within the field of literary studies, whereas authors as women is important for both constructing a feminist canon and for expanding coverage of women within scholarship, especially in Women's Studies and Gender Studies. Sadads (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you just making things up, or do you really believe that? Shall I send you links to studies and papers on male writers? Or are you able to google a bit yourself? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Origin comment: Since some commenters don't seem to comprehend why this category was created: A very infrequent user (User:Imurchie) created it and put Orson Scott Card in it, along with P. D. Cacek and V. V. Ganeshananthan who are both WOMEN. Imurchie was mocking the issue, and continued use of this category would be a farce. Novelists are novelists, we don't divide them by every possible categorization, e.g., their height, their religion, simply because we could.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And from that we get warnings from admins, [7], [8], [9], and absolutely absurd edit warring with those of us trying to clean up the mess, [10], [11], [12]. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Evidence to keep This is a topic worthy of scholarship - in a quick search I was able to find several books and artiles that cover the subject of male authorship and writing:

1. The African American Male, Writing and Difference: A Polycentric Approach to African American Literature, Criticism, and History, W. Lawrence Hogue, SUNY Press, 2003
2. Men writing the feminine: literature, theory, and the question of genders, Editor Thaīs E. Morgan, Contributor Thaīs E. Morgan, Publisher SUNY Press, 1994
3. Title Race-Ing Masculinity: Identity in Contemporary U.S. Men's Writing, Garland Studies in American Popular History and Culture, Author John Christopher Cunningham, Edition illustrated, Publisher Psychology Press, 2002
4. Title American Masculinities: A Historical Encyclopedia, Volume 1, A Sage Reference Publication Series, Sage eReference, Editor bret E. Carroll, Contributor bret E. Carroll, Edition illustrated, reprint, Publisher SAGE Publications, 2003

Clearly women's studies is a larger and better covered topic, but men's studies (or gender studies) is also a thing, and is also growing. So all of those arguing that we should have a women's cat but not a men's cat are ignoring current and growing literature on this topic. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The claims by truthseeker about the warnings against unilaterally removing this category are misleading. No one has objected to removal of this category where it has been incorrectly applied to those who are not men, those who are not Americans or those who are not novelsits. What we have objected to is people removing it from Edward Abbey who is clearly a man, a novelsits and an American. Objecting to a category being small while at the same time fighting tooth and nail against those who are trying to expand it makes no sense and is arguably a disingenous way to carry on an argument.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example the first link Truthseeker gave was over him removing Stephen Crane from the category. That was not at all justified. Crane is clearly a man, a novelists and an American.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually Truthkeeper (but lots of people call me TK) and I'm actually a woman. Fwiw. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but close to conform to discussion on Category:American women novelists. Since women and men tend to address slightly different subjects, I consider that gender is appropriate for a split here: certainly for novelists, but not journalists. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete / Merge The category is a splendid example of Wikipedia over-categorization -- next we will have "American men novelists who wrotr trilogies" or the like? The simplest category is almost invariably the best category. Msle or female. Enough. Collect (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. Males and writing is not an interesting intersection. Women's studies (previously known as "gender studies") is an established academic field in the US. Therefore it is scientifically justified to have a subcategory reflecting the research interests of scholars in the field. And yes, the topic of women and writing has been extensively studied in academic literature. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Males and writing is not an interesting intersection." ^{[citation needed]} - seriously - back that statement up, or strike it. If you do a bit of searching, you'll find there are a number of books written on this very topic.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Pointless overcategorization. Also, the mere fact that some intersection might be of academic interest and worthy of an article does not mean that it is necessarily suitable for a category. Neutrality^talk 07:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Generally this is the thing we use to create categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The origins of a category nor the exact thoughts of the creator are not relevant to the discussion of the deletion of the category. Miscategorization is also not in and of itself grounds to delete a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: There are about 50 different things wrong with this category, chief among them being that it violates naming conventions pbp 17:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this alleged naming convention that it violates? How does it violate naming conventions? What specific part of the name is in violation of naming conventions?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

that's a terribly weak argument. If the problem is the name, you propose a rename, not merge. I'm all for calling it American male novelists for example, but for now it does align with the existing pattern, odd as it is to say.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I have a fear that if we end up with American male novelists, and American women novelsits, someone will complain that somehow the difference represents some sort of discrimination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename "American male novelists". I know this isn't parallel to "women novelists," but unfortunately at some point the scholarly herd decided "female" meant something bad. Categories are supposed to be useful, and should be neither OR nor agents of political change or correctness; encyclopedic categories should reflect forms of categorization that are used and regarded as legitimate within the field of study. Gender has been a topic of literary studies at least since the 1960s, and since the 1990s, "women's studies" has been paralleled by "masculinity studies": see "white male novelist"; "white male writer"; "male novelists"; and "male writers". There are two ways to go about populating the category: (1) Make Category:American novelists a container category, and categorize all American novelists by gender; or (2) observe the guideline that categories should be supported by article text with appropriate citations: that is, inclusion in either Category:American male novelists or Category:American women novelists would require verification in secondary sources demonstrating that the novelist is the subject of gender-literary criticism (that is, categorization is not based on the presumed biological gender of the person). Option 2 is obviously much more complicated, probably impractical to implement, and if overlapping is prohibited, would produce oddities such as John Updike being removed from the category "American novelists" and shunted into "American male novelists". But if that removal poses no ideological difficulties in the case of Eudora Welty, then I'd say it's fine for Norman Mailer too. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Whether men would remain *only* in this category is not is based on whether WP:EGRS is changed. If it's not changed, then this cat would be non-diffusing - meaning people should not be removed from the parent (unless they are also in a diffusing sibling cat) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Upmerge to Category:American male writers and [[:Category:American novelists]. While it is clear the is some connection of gender and writing, it is not enough to justify seperating out male and female writers in all category levels (I would argue the relationship of gender and acting is enough to justify such multi-level seperations). I originally thought that novelists would function as a broad holding category for lots of genres, but after seeing several novels described as being of the genre "novel" I have given up much hope of ever making it a true container category like Category:American musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In light of the decision to keep Category:American women novelists, we should keep this category as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Grouping American novelists by both gender and century, and genre where applicable, is eminently more sensible than dumping them all in one parent category. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back to American novelists - seems clearly to be created as a knee-jerk reaction to the press hype. I'm unaware of there being any studies of male writing. This over-categorizing is becoming a major waste of everyone's valuable time! Sionk (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google is your friend. sex and the American male novelist, Manliness and the male novelist in Victorian literature, salon's The Agony of the Male Novelist, The male novelist in twentieth-century Britain,Volume 13, Issue 1 of Studies in the literary imagination, Georgia State University, 1980; The Male Novelist and the 'woman Question': George Meredith's Presentation of His Heroines in the Egoist (1879) and Diana of the Crossways (1885), Alan Nigel Bell, Posting the Male: Masculinities in Post-War and Contemporary British Literature,Editors Daniel Lea, Berthold Schoene-Harwood, 2003. Obviously, not as well covered as studies of women novelists, but a subject of study nonetheless.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Note to the unfortunate admin who closes this. Since I took it upon myself to fully diffuse Category:American novelists, to merge this back into the parent would create a far worse ghettoization problem than the original one that prompted Filipacchi's article. However, most of the articles are now in the new century categories as well, so deleting this outright wouldn't cause too many problems. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my - yes this is a good point. Given that some people have been diffusing this category, we should *not* in any case merge this back up to the top cat - rather category intersection should be used to find any men novelists who are *not* in the by-centuries categories, and move them there. There is a broader discussion about whether the by-century cats should diffuse or not, so if they end up being non-diffusing, everyone will un-diffuse at the same time. Good point Xezbeth - if we merge up, the result would be a few thousand men in the head cat and almost no women (as most women and men have been diffused to by-century cats now), which would be undesireable in the short term (even if consensus ends up being to merge everyone up in the long term). --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Merge - this is a terrible idea for a category. 'American women novelists' was at least somewhat justifiable, this just isn't. Men's writing simply hasn't been the subject of widespread study the way women's writing has, and in most cases, an author's gender is irrelevant to their writing anyway. If it is kept, it should at least be renamed, as 'men novelists' is plainly ungrammatical; 'American male novelists' would be correct. But there's really no need for this category whatsoever. Robofish (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2013 (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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the following categories should be renamed because Lingerie Football League was renamed in 2013 to Legends Football League:

• Category: Lingerie Football League templates‎
• Category: Lingerie Football League players‎ (maybe also should be subcategorized by countrys like Category: Legends Football League teams‎)
• Category: Lingerie Football League teams‎ (should be subcategorized cause it doesnt holds ONLY US-based teams as the cat of this cat would indicate)
  • UPDATE: done! -- Weapon X (de) (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Category: Lingerie Football League venues‎

Weapon X (de) (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match current league name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2013 (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: I'm going to merge both categories into a new Category:Dioceses of the Episcopal Church. Then users can create subcategories as desired, as discussed below. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:Episcopal dioceses of the United States to Category:Dioceses and Missions of the Episcopal Church (USA)
  

Nominator's rationale: I felt it would be best to change the cat "Episcopal Dioceses in the United States" with the more accurate "Dioceses and Missions of the Episcopal Church (United States) as this would more accurately reflect the geographical distribution of the ECs dioceses (which include Taiwan, Haiti, Honduras) and include its missions (Navajoland, Micronesia). I started to do this manually, changing each page one by one, but I realized that would take forever. Could this merger still work even if the the cat has already been created?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: I see that you've made significant progress on your manual move of the category, with the result that more than one-third of the category contents are now in the destination category. Please don't continue your manual-move project; let's discuss the category here first. --Orlady (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original Category:Episcopal dioceses of the United States did not accurately reflect the dioceses in the organization, which, as I noted, includes dioceses outside of the US. The already existing cat Category:Anglican dioceses in North America exist to cover the geographic aspect and is broad enough to include dioceses in other Anglican denominations. Also there are entities within the ECUSA that are not diocese per se, but have more or less the same status and are counted as such in the template and list (Navajoland, Micronesia, Convocation of the Churches in Europe.) I know that this is repetitive but I have been asked to discuss my reasoning here, so...here it is;)--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- There is a redundant category in this tree but it is Category:Dioceses of the Anglican Church in North America. Category:Anglican dioceses in North America is a proper parent to Canadian Anglican and US Episcopal categories. I am not clear what the missions category is covering apart from these, but I would suggest that we should have a category for missions (presumably outside the diocesan structure), which about be an abberrant child category of one of the others. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see your point about Category:Dioceses of the Anglican Church in North America. You are aware that that is a completely different organization than the Episcopal Church, right? There are only two missions and they are both within Provincese like the other diocese, so I think the difference is academic--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Peterkingiron is talking about Category:Anglican dioceses in North America, which is a "religious organization by geography" category. It is not the same thing as Category:Dioceses of the Anglican Church in North America, which is a "relgious organization by denomination" category. Both Category:Episcopal dioceses of the United States and Category:Dioceses of the Anglican Church in North America are subcategories of Category:Anglican dioceses in North America, together with Category:Anglican Church of Canada dioceses. --Orlady (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, and discuss the category organization further. See my comments on Mangoe's proposal below.

Basically, there are (and there is a need for) at least two overlapping sets of categories, none of which is properly developed right now. One is a set of categories for the denomination. Until recently, those categories were in Category:Episcopal Church in the United States of America, but in February that category was renamed to Category:Episcopal Church (United States) (was the denomination renamed?). It appears that Bellerophon5685 is focused on building out the denomination categories. There is a second overlapping set of categories related to "religion by geography". The Category:Episcopal dioceses of the United States is part of the religion by geography category, and it should include all Episcopal dioceses that are in the United States. The category for Episcopal dioceses in the United States is properly a subcategory of Category:Anglican dioceses in North America -- these are not redundant categories because North America is bigger than the United States and because not all North American Anglicans are Episcopalians. (Category:Episcopal dioceses of the United States is also a subcategory of Category:Dioceses in the United States, which includes dioceses of other Christian denominations.)

Individual Episcopal dioceses should be categorized in categories for the denomination and also in categories for religion by geography. This hasn't been done properly in the past because inadequately informed editors (including me!) mistakenly thought the denomination called the "Episcopal Church in the United States of America" was restricted to the geographic scope of "United States of America". Since it appears that's not the case, some additional categories will need to be built to separate the "by denomination" structure from the "by geography" structure.

A further issue in considering revisions to category structure is nomenclature. Probably the "by geography" structure should use names like Category:Anglicanism in the United States and Category:Anglican dioceses in the United States, which means it would include split-off Anglican groups in addition to the Episcopal Church (United States). As for the "by denomination" structure, the main naming issue is the plethora of names currently used in the titles of categories and articles in Category:Episcopal Church (United States). I see this same denomination called "Episcopal Church (United States)", "Episcopal Church (USA)", "Episcopal Church in the United States of America‎", ECUSA (in Category:Episcopal (ECUSA) churches in Europe), "Episcopal Church in the United States", and just plain "Episcopal Church". Before we go about renaming individual categories, it would be nice to have a consensus as to the one name that Wikipedia intends to use as the standard name for this denomination.

Finally, I agree with Peterkingiron that dioceses and missions probably should be in separate categories within the denomination structure. --Orlady (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean the Dioceses of Taiwan and Venezuela should be put in in Category:Anglican diocese in Asia/ South America for the geography set (agree) but that would leave them out of the category for diocese in the Episcopal Church, for the denominational set, thus making that cat incomplete, would it not?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, those dioceses should be included in categories for Anglican organizations in the geographic areas where they are located. That categorization is not an "either/or" issue, though. In addition, they should be listed in a relevant category for their denominational organization. I hesitate to say what that category should be, since I'm not sure what name we are using for the denomation. --Orlady (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• rename/split We're dealing with two problems here. One is the rebranding of the church a few years back: as far as I know "Episcopal Church in the United States of America" is still a valid name as far as I know, but they've been pushing "The Episcopal Church" for some years now to emphasize the fact that they have dioceses outside the USA. These latter are categorized in their statistical totals at least as "Non-domestic dioceses". The other is the mission status of Navaholand and Micronesia. This detail is inevitably ignored in church statistics and in any grouping they are usually treated as if they were just like other dioceses (and indeed "diocese" and "mission" are used somewhat interchangeably for these two). Therefore I suggest the following:

• Rename Category:Episcopal dioceses of the United States to Category:Dioceses of The Episcopal Church (reflecting the now-used name)
• Split off Category:Non-domestic dioceses of The Episcopal Church for those outside the USA; this would be a subcat of the above

This would tend to imply moving the main article to The Episcopal Church which I agree looks dumb but hey, I don't have any pull at 815 2nd Avenue. And yes, they do encourage the acronym "TEC". Mangoe (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for clarifying the denomination name, Mangoe. IMO, the articles and categories for the denomination all need to be made consistent. Your proposal makes sense, but I'd like to revise it so that the resulting U.S. category can be slotted into a "Religion by geography" category. Accordingly, I suggest that the renamed category be further subdivided into Category:United States dioceses of The Episcopal Church and Category:Non-domestic dioceses of The Episcopal Church. --Orlady (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Additionally, I hope we can dispense with the uppercase "T" in "The" and simply call these Category:Dioceses of the Episcopal Church, Category:United States dioceses of the Episcopal Church and Category:Non-domestic dioceses of the Episcopal Church. --Orlady (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If we want to empty the main catgory the second subcat would be Category:Domestic dioceses of the Episcopal Church which is again how the US dioceses are invariably grouped in church stats and documents. Incidentally this division goes all the way back to the incorporation of the church, whose official corporation name is "The Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United Status of America". PS I don't care so much about whether "The" is or is not capitalized. Mangoe (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• For general consistency with nomenclature in related categories like Category:Dioceses in the United States and to avoid giving people the impression that these dioceses have something to do with "domestic workers", can we call these Category:Episcopal Church dioceses in the United States and Category:Episcopal Church dioceses outside the United States? --Orlady (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2013 (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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Songs written by Anthony Santos to Category:Songs written by Romeo Santos

Nominator's rationale: Romeo Santos is the official name for the artist. Erick

• This appears on the surface to be a C2D, since the article on this individual is at Romeo Santos, but in the song articles in this category, he is listed as "Anthony Santos". It would be confusing to use two names for the same person in the one article without any clarification. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but do use the artist name? I see the category for songs Usher as Category:Songs written by Usher (entertainer) and Akon as Category:Songs written by Akon, not their actual names. Romeo Santos is the stage name the artist went right after becoming a solo singer. EDIT: Also, the category did not the contain the songs he composed as a solo singer which I have now corrected and it was created before Santos became a solo singer. Erick (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It is WP practice to match article and category name, and as such this could have been a speedy under C2C. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, didn't know that. Thanks for the heads up. Erick (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, logical move for both standardization and uniformity purposes. — Cirt (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2013 (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: duplicate nomination: see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 24#Category:American women novelists. - Eureka Lott 18:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:American women novelists to Category:American novelists

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Makes no sense to have a category for gender of the novelist as it's largely irrelevant, especially when all the other subcategories are based on literary genre. 98.156.65.193 (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• keep as a part of the several parent categories to which this category belongs. Nominator's statement does not take these into account. And no reason to target American women is advanced. Hmains (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close – already open at cfd. Oculi (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE: This segregation by gender makes no sense for literary interests. Anyway, how will you handle writer’s pseudonyms which are opposite gender? You already have categories as to the type of writing. Women/Man split makes no sense. We are writers. Suns River — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suns River (talk • contribs) 15:01, 25 April 2013 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Japanese armour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Duplicative of Category:Samurai armour. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 01:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• do not merge the article Japanese armour clearly shows that Japanese armor extends far beyond the Samurai period. So the merge as proposed is not appropriate. Hmains (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Samurai are not the only Japanese to wear armour, or have armour made for them, or the only type of armour made by Japanese. Samurai armour is a proper subset of all Japanese armour. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Based on arguments above and the presence of non-samurai armour in the Category:Japanese armour category, it is apparent that not all Japanese armour is Samurai armour. --Lquilter (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, essentially per Lquilter (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2013 (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.