< November 9 November 11 >

November 10

Category:Recipients of the World Association of Newspapers' Golden Pen of Freedom Award

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the World Association of Newspapers' Golden Pen of Freedom Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#AWARD. Having won an award is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic and/or is not a good way to categorize people. I've checked a sample of the articles in this category and all are in a more appropriate category (e.g. Category:Iranian journalists). For info: There is a list at World Association of Newspapers' Golden Pen of Freedom Award. DexDor (talk) 21:18, 10 November 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.

Category:IPI World Press Freedom Heroes

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#AWARD. Having won an award is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic and/or is not a good way to categorize people. I've checked a sample of the articles in this category and all are in a more appropriate category (e.g. Category:Israeli women journalists). For info: There is a list at International_Press_Institute_World_Press_Freedom_Heroes#Recipients. DexDor (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was this category's creator, but the rationale above makes sense to me. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:59, 10 November 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.

Category:Puppet Master characters

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Small category with no chance of expansion. The individual characters from the series are not independently notable (the one character article is on its way to deletion or merger) and the category isn't needed to hold the character list. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 14:23, 10 November 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.

Category:Saints of Ottoman Corinth

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: one-member category, no potential for expansion Constantine ✍ 10:24, 10 November 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.

Category:Radical lesbian feminists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This seems to be a diffusing subcategory of both Lesbian feminists and radical feminists. The result is that people looking for lesbian feminists will not find them if they happen to be radical (thus, violating WP:EGRS); it also creates a "last-rung" category for a sexuality-specific variant of radical feminism (i.e. Lesbians), also violating WP:EGRS which asks us to not create such last-rung categories. It is also a great case where category intersection could replace the category entirely, since the category is by definition feminists who are both radical and lesbian; I've created a sample at Category:Lesbian feminists so you can see what it might look like. This one should simply be merged back to the parent categories. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had created the category because radical lesbian feminism is a specific feminist ideology that combines elements of radical feminism as well as lesbian feminism. The pages for Mary Daly, Melanie Rodriga, and others list them as self-identified radical lesbian feminists. However, the category has been misused at times...Nomy Lamm for example is not a radical feminist, yet somebody added her. I had thought about creating a category for Category:Radical lesbian feminism as well...should I not do that? There's also the issue of the radical lesbians. Radical lesbianism is a specific lesbian ideology, but it is not necessarily feminist. Michèle Causse, for example, was a non-feminist radical lesbian. Gayle Rubin is not a radical feminist, but she is a lesbian feminist and a radical lesbian. Would a category for Category:Radical lesbians be a bad idea? Ugh, it would be nice if there were some way to categorize these women by their ideology...but it may not work out. Maybe an article could be started on Radical lesbian feminism? Solar-Wind (talk) 08:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about Radical lesbians - but in any case, while this may indeed be a specific ideology we don't need to categorize every single ideology. In this case, a category intersection can take care of the issue rather cleanly without violating WP:EGRS rules around no bottom-rung categories.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:21, 10 November 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.

Category:People on Forbes lists

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Forbes publishes a number of lists, but I don't think these are defining and I don't think we should start a category tree of them. These Forbes lists are sort of like awards, but they are a bit less discriminate (e.g. hundreds of people listed every year) - They are generally of the ilk "America's <superlative adjective> <nouns>" - while it may be appropriate to mention this in the bio of certain people if it contributed to their notability, I don't think we need these as categories. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The top 10 of each year already are...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't think we need to reproduce here various lists produced by various organizations - especially if they have a hundred members (like this case), or hundreds (as is the case with Forbes billionaires list). Creating categories for them is a violation of Wikipedia:OCAT#Award_recipients. There has been a push to trim the awards categories, so this is just in line with many of those other nominations - we've trimmed a lot of awards categories where there is only one winner, as opposed to 100/year like this one.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lists already exist, though they just show the top 10 for each year: Forbes_Magazine's_List_of_The_World's_100_Most_Powerful_Women. There are several other Forbes lists as well.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:04, 12 November 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.

Category:Women by province or territory in Canada

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, with selective merge where needed. No merge is needed for most categories, as the contents are well categorised already. Although some editors were in favour of keeping the categories, they did not counter the strong policy grounds cited by those arguing for merger/ deletion, which I find persuasive. As for the actresses categories, these are already parented by Category:Canadian actresses by province or territory and the "women in" categories. – Fayenatic London 01:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A number of these just popped up on the list of new categories created, which I think take gendering a step too far - it is simply not WP:DEFINING to have an intersection of gender + province or city; thus I don't think we should start building categories of women by state, province, city, etc; I think any gendering should be kept at a national level. The only exception might be actresses, where you have many thousands of entries, and it may make sense to divide by gender + job + state in order to further diffuse a category. These ones, however, are not needed, because there's no particular intersection with being a woman and being from Ottawa or Ontario that is significant. I note that we have Category:Women in the United States by state, which is however intended as a topic collection for articles specifically about women's issues in those states, and there is a similar scheme at Category:Women_in_Canada_by_province_or_territory, and it's fine to host the actress categories underneath, but this new scheme seems intended for a different purpose, and I don't think we should go down this path. (Combined the Karachi category here since it's basically the same deal). Note: Of the Canadian cats, it appears that a merge is not necessary, as the members seem to have had the category simply added to their profiles, but I wouldn't be opposed to a selective upmerge to the parents if needed. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the Category:Women in Ontario and other similar categories could be used for the same purpose; they are used in this way in the US for example (see Category:Women in New York, which contains no women, but which has Category:Actresses from New York - I just don't think we need both Women in X and Women from X.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make a proposal to merge in one direction or the other, that might be a way forward. But the deletion proposed in this nomination will leave some categories of women in those areas outside of the local "women in/from" categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you noted, we shouldn't have individual women in cats like Category:Women from Ontario or Category:Women in Ontario - but we could group there a category of same like Category:Actresses from Ontario - so I'd be happy to manually move those for now, and then delete the categories as dupes (which would remove it from the individual articles.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate Karachi. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peter; per your keep votes, are you suggesting that it would be a good idea to have Category:Women from New York and Category:Women from London and so on for every city/town/etc in the world? What do you think of the fact that we already have Category:Women in British Columbia - do we also need Category:Women from British Columbia? I just haven't seen this structure anywhere else, and it seems to go against standard practice to do gender + province, esp if you're not intersecting a job.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for drawing my attention to the revised nom. I see no objection to splitting New York and London categories by gender, but a split into the constituent boroughs is a better first split. No objection in principle to the "in" system, but "people from" is a well established pattern, covering both current residents and those who have moved elsewhere, which an "in" system will not. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OttawaHT, I think you misunderstand the purpose of categorization; as Black Falcon notes, it is not in any way intended to help highlight or correct systemic bias. If this were the case, then you could use the same argument to keep any arbitrary "women + x" category, but consensus to date has been to limit these categories to only certain cases. In this case, there is nothing specific about being a women + being from a certain province or city that is more "defining" or special than being a man from the same province. If your issue is there are not enough articles about women, I'd encourage you to create and expand new articles, vs creating new categories or duplicate categories, several of which are ending up here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:26, 3 December 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.

Category:Murdered feminists

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Feminism is not an occupation, and not all of the people in this category were killed because they were feminists (and indeed, there are likely many other people killed who happen to be feminists). As such, murdered + feminist would not, in most cases, be defining. Either delete this category, or rename is as Murdered women's rights activists or something similar, so as to define something as a job - we shouldn't start categorizing murder victims by their political beliefs. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:39, 10 November 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.

Category:Films shot in Metrocolor

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I have some doubt as to whether the color process used for a film is defining but in this case, films definitely aren't defined by having been processed in-house by MGM using a color process called something else entirely. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:46, 10 November 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.

Category:Kaleidoscope albums

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: split. The nominated category is now a disambiguation category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category currently contains three albums of Kaleidoscope (U.S. band) and two albums of Kaleidoscope (UK band). Armbrust The Homunculus 00:37, 10 November 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.
More