< February 9 February 11 >

February 10

Category:Maritime

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) 23:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-noun category name. This category contains just one article and has no parents (apart from Category:Commons category with local link same as on Wikidata - which is probably why it's not listed at Wikipedia:Database_reports/Uncategorized_categories). DexDor (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2014 (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:Transgender and transsexual gay

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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual gay to Category:Transgender and transsexual gay men
Nominator's rationale: As with as "Transgender and transsexual lesbian" below, per Wikipedia conventions about category naming, this needs to be named in the plural "gay men" rather than the singular "gay"; in its current form, it's also a string of adjectives that doesn't even contain a noun for the adjectives to be adjectival to. Truth be told, I'm not entirely convinced that the combination of gender identity with sexual orientation constitutes a category that we actually need at all — which is why I'm bringing it here rather than to speedy, because consensus might be that it should just be deleted instead of renamed — but if it is kept it must be renamed. Delete? Rename? Bearcat (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, it would be best to creates articles on FTMs attracted to men and MTFs attracted to women and these articles could include lists of such individuals? Not sure, just a suggestion. Solar-Wind (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a general article on transgender sexuality; I sincerely doubt that we could really write or properly source an entire article just about transgender people who are attracted to the same gender. Bearcat (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We could actually but I think it would be pretty bad at this point, as the literature in this area is limited, even Transgender sexuality is in a rather sorry state. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly transgender people who are sexually attracted to the same gender exist. Nobody's denying that. But apart from the simple fact that sexual orientation and gender identity are two different things that may or may not correspond in the way some people think they should (a fact which is already covered in the article on transgender sexuality), what's uniquely notable about being a transgender gay man? How is it a phenomenon that warrants categorization as such in an encyclopedia? Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2014 (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:Transgender and transsexual lesbian

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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual lesbian to Category:Transgender and transsexual lesbians
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia conventions about category naming, this needs to be named in the plural "lesbians" rather than the singular "lesbian". Truth be told, I'm not entirely convinced that the combination of gender identity with sexual orientation constitutes a category that we actually need at all — which is why I'm bringing it here rather than to speedy, because consensus might be that it should just be deleted instead of renamed — but if it is kept it must be renamed. Delete? Rename? Bearcat (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, it would be best to creates articles on FTMs attracted to men and MTFs attracted to women and these articles could include lists of such individuals? Not sure, just a suggestion. Solar-Wind (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a general article on transgender sexuality; I sincerely doubt that we could really write or properly source an entire article just about transgender people who are attracted to the same gender. Bearcat (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly transgender people who are sexually attracted to the same gender exist. Nobody's denying that. But apart from the simple fact that sexual orientation and gender identity are two different things that may or may not correspond in the way some people think they should (a fact which is already covered in the article on transgender sexuality), what's uniquely notable about being a transgender lesbian? How is it a phenomenon that warrants categorization as such in an encyclopedia? Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2014 (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:Dukes of Greece

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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See rationale at #Category:Margraves of Greece: again, only crusader states are in this category. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:26, 10 February 2014 (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:Margraves of Greece

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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See rationale at #Category:Marquisates of Greece. The margraves of Bodonitsa were not Greek, nor where they subject to a Greek overlord. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:25, 10 February 2014 (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:Marquisates of Greece

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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is misleading: it suggests that its member categories and articles, which describe the marquisate of Bodonitsa, where part of Greece and should be categorized with modern Greek nobility. While this state occupied some of the territory of modern Greece, it was in fact a Frankish crusader state. There was no notion of Greece in 1204–1414, only a Greek-speaking Roman Empire. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:22, 10 February 2014 (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:Marquisates of the Crusader states

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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Either only one crusader marquisate was established, or we just don't have articles on the other ones. In any case, this category contains only a single subcat, and is hindering navigation; I suggest it be deleted until more articles about crusader marquisates are written (if more existed). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:09, 10 February 2014 (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:Public services in Montreal

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) 02:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is the only category of its kind for cities. I think the pages within and sub-categories would be better placed in other categories such as Category:Municipal government of Montreal. MTLskyline (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2014 (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:Government bond issuers

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) 21:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Whether a particular entity issues a bond is, I would argue, generally not defining. There are at least 18 federal agencies in the US that issue debt, and if you broaden the scope to entities which issue (or have issued) municipal debt (i.e. below the sovereign level), this goes up into the tens or maybe hundreds of thousands globally (according to this, there are 80,000 issuers of municipal bonds in the US alone: [1]). And of course, most private companies also issue debt, and this is clearly not DEFINING for the private companies (which is why we don't have Category:Private sector bond issuers). I don't think navigation would be improved by building out this structure further, and I think other existing categories, such as Category:Finance ministries or Category:Government-owned companies by country or Category:Central_banks fulfills the purpose of this category a bit better; there are many ways governments raise money, issuing bonds is one of them, but a category of all agencies that have at any point in the past issued debt would not be useful because it would likely comprise a very large number of government agencies and government-owned corporations, at least in the US. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2014 (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:Government bonds by type

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not clear of the purpose of this category; the parent category is sufficient here. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2014 (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:Empowerment of women

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) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The scope of this category is unclear and all articles currently in there are adequately categorized using long-standing categories. Pichpich (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What would you put in this category, exactly, that isn't already categorized in the well developed trees of Category:Women's rights and Category:Feminism?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2014 (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:Giants in television

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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Should be merged up into the giants in fiction or Giants in popular culture category seeing as there's practically nothing in this one. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Criteria too vague to be useful especially when there are also sports teams named Giants that appear on television. -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2014 (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:Gay sportsmen

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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: So, there are a couple of things wrong with this category. First of all, it has a title that begins with a term that is rather vague, since the word "gay" can mean multiple things to multiple people. Additionally, it includes "sportsmen," which doesn't really explain anything. If the name of the category is to be taken to include just athletes, which it doesn't in practice, then it should be superceded by Category:LGBT sportspeople. It does also include a wide array of persons by occupation, although there are also categories that can replace this, so that should also be taken into account. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete convention says we dont separate out gay and lesbian, but use the umbrella LGBT, and we also dont use "men", but rather "people". if we need to distinguish between male and female, we can use "female tennis players" or "male shotputters". this category is easily superseded by the one indicated by the nominator, so all the people in it should be upmerged to that one.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, those aren't the conventions on either issue.
For LGBT people, the convention that we use a merged "LGBT" category is true only in cases where the number of articles is not yet large enough to split them out into quadrant-specific categories — but if the number of articles is large enough, or gender has special relevance as an aspect of the topic (which it very much does in sports, since there are very few sports in which men and women directly compete against each other), then we do split them into quadrants. See, for example, Category:LGBT writers, Category:LGBT politicians, Category:LGBT musicians and Category:LGBT artists, all of which are quadrantized. You certainly have the option of arguing that Category:LGBT sportspeople, which currently has roughly 300 articles distributed among its subcategories, isn't large enough yet to justify being quadrantized — but you're mistaken if you think that we never allow quadrantization.
And the general parent categories for gender vis-à-vis sportspeople are located at Category:Sportsmen and Category:Sportswomen, to boot. (Yes, we use the more general "sportspeople" in categories where gender isn't the distingushing feature of the category, but where it is the relevant distinction we currently use "sportsmen" and "sportswomen" rather than "male/female sportspeople".) As with LGBT, you're certainly free to propose that we rename the whole shebang to "Male/Female sportspeople" if you wish (though I'm pretty sure you'd lose that fight, for the same reason you'd fail to get Category:Actresses renamed to "Female actors"), but these categories are using the existing wording for the sportspeople side of their parentage. Just for the record, it was a CFR consensus to rename this category to its current form in the first place; it was previously at "Gay sportspeople" (first created at that title in 2006!), and was renamed to this form last year precisely because the parent category was Category:Sportsmen and not "Male sportspeople". Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When we live in a world where people aren't still debating whether or not there will ever be an openly gay player in MLB or the NHL or the NFL, then maybe it'll become unsupportable under WP:CATEGRS. When we live in a world where the only openly gay NBA player in history hasn't spent the entire year since his coming out sitting at home undrafted by a new team, then maybe it'll become unsupportable. Actually playing the sport differently than people outside the defined group is not the only criterion that defines whether such a category is supportable or not — if you're playing the sport the same way as everybody else, but doing so in a cultural context that treats you differently for it, then that satisfies EGRS just fine too. Bearcat, who far from coincidentally wrote large portions of EGRS in the first place and thus knows quite well what it does and doesn't allow (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It means what it says, not the undisclosed thoughts of its drafters, as you ought to realize. We live in a world where lots of people have difficulties finding employment for all types of discrimination or pre-conceived notions, including popular appeal or not, but that does not mean that categories for such people are appropriate. Write an article on the subject, rather than categorize people on these traits. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it means what it says — but everything I just said is not an "undisclosed thought", but is right there in the document, and thus is part of what it means and says. And guess what else, numerous articles on LGBT people in sports already exist — and the ability to write an encyclopedic head article about the topic is, furthermore, one of the factors in how a category becomes justifiable under EGRS. Bearcat (talk) 07:20, 11 February 2014 (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:Ethnic culture and history

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep all (i.e. do not rename). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename categories in line with the hyphenation of other similar categories. The French Canadian category has the hyphen in the wrong place. Solar-Wind (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay, I guess I made a mistake on the French-Canadian category. I think the rest should be renamed though. Solar-Wind (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:14, 10 February 2014 (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:Chilodontidae stubs

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 (no voiced opposition after relisting). Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Permanent category renamed to Category:Chilodontidae (gastropods), as this family name is also in use by fish. Propose changing the corresponding template to ((Chilodontidae-gastropod-stub)). At this point, the permanent fish category is small enough to not worry about a stub category or template. Dawynn (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedia events and real-life initiatives

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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia events and real-life initiatives to Category:Wikipedia events and off-line initiatives
Nominator's rationale: Real-life comes across as a bit odd- onwiki/online events are still (I hope) part of reality, so I suggest renaming the real-life part of this category to offline or offwiki. :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 10:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Suggested better re-name off-wiki intitiatives - so the potential confusion as to what constitutes reality, real life, on or off line are not unnecessarily further argued here or anywhere else - to keep it simple with off-wiki - if it is undertsood sufficiently may be more appropriate. satusuro 11:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support change. I prefer "off-wiki" to "off-line" but neither of them are widely accepted terms. "Off-wiki" is something only said by Wikipedians, and this category includes virtual meetups outside Wikipedia, so that is not the best term. Still, I think it is better than "off-line" because it is used more on Wikipedia, even though offline captures more of the meaning. Actually, this is problematic. I do not know what is best. A change to either of those terms is better than the current title, though. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:10, 10 February 2014 (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:Former fortresses

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 to Category:Forts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Skimming the parent cat verifies that generally it goes without saying that a certain fortress is inactive. Active ones are usually called Bases, Prisons etc. trespassers william (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2014 (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