< July 12 July 14 >

July 13

Category:Articles lacking medical references or verification

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) 01:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Articles lacking medical references or verification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category has not been used by ((Medref)) since this 2012 edit. The category that template uses is Category:Articles needing additional medical references. Reventtalk 21:37, 13 July 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.

Advocates of population moderation categories

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) 01:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OC. Their creator—based on his/her subjective interpretations—keeps adding those categories to articles that do not clearly support their addition. Plus, those cumbersome terms ("advocates of population moderation" and "people expressing concern about population size") are, in effect, too ambiguous to ever be useful. --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:36, 13 July 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:Women historians

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, leaning towards keep. This case is not like the Filipacchi case, as women and men are still listed together by nationality, specialism etc. At any rate this discussion does not encourage creating any more specific sub-cats of women historians (there is currently one for art historians); nor is there a consensus to create one for male historians. – Fayenatic London 06:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Have we learned nothing from the Amanda Filipacchi matter? Gamaliel (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
if you disagree with dual categorization this isn't the place, that is a longstanding guidance and consensus. Even if you create male you will still dual categorize (see how it's handled in the American novelists tree for example).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. This (with American novelists) is indeed what I had in mind for splitting male and female. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
they're not actually split. All novelists are also in (x-century American novelists). Only actors and sports people are treated with full gender split. But it wouldn't make sense to treat historians as sports stars since historians don't compete in gender-split leagues. The women historians here aren't ghettoized as long as they are in (x-nationality historians) along with their male peers.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a category for women who are historians. Generally we use "women" vs "female" when the contents are all adults (we use female for musicians, singers, and sports people - but there's no clear consensus, that's just a rough consensus). In terms of studies, see books like "A "Manly Study"?: Irish Women Historians, 1868-1949" or "American Women Historians, 1700s-1990s: A Biographical Dictionary". There are ALSO a whole tree of Category:Historians_by_field_of_study, but that's not the issue here - this is a category for women who are historians, quite simply. I don't quite understand how this category is divisive?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The category is intended to divide historians into two groups - historians who are women and all other historians. If the intention was to add value by identifying the sex (or is it gender...?) of the historians, we would have "Women historians", "Male historians" (although you would call this "Men historians"), "Intersexed historians", and "Historians of unknown sex". It is literally divisive by design and metaphorically divisive in that there is no corresponding male category. Nigel Pap (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is disingenuous to use "scholarly studies" of women who were employed in occupations that at the time were unusual for women to justify having a separate category in 2014 when it is not unusual for women to have those occupations. Perhaps there could be a Category:Historical female historians to satisfy whatever need there is to identify those instances? Nigel Pap (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nigel, I would encourage you STRONGLY to assume good faith here. For example this: The category is intended to divide historians into two groups - historians who are women and all other historians. couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, the intent of ALL such categories (around ethnicity, gender, sexuality, or religion) is to provide an ADDITIONAL descriptor and grouping. All of the contents of Category:Women historians should ALSO be in the neutral equivalent (e.g. Category:Historians by nationality and others as appropriate)) - that is longstanding policy. Some have argued that if we have (Women X) we MUST therefore have (Male X), but this is simply not how things work here. In some cases we have both - e.g. Category:Male novelists and Category:Women novelists, in some cases we only have one, e.g. Category:Female heads of government or Category:Male nurses. As long as everyone is still in a neutral equivalent, there is no divisiveness here. That said, if you want to make an argument that "Women" + "historian" is no longer a subject of special study, and that women being historians or entering the field of history is no longer relevant, studied, discussed, etc, then you can make that argument. But with the ongoing existence of things like [1] and [2], [3], [4], etc. makes that an uphill battle. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are conflating unrelated things. Women who are historians may have distinct professional concerns and form associations, but that does not suggest that people outside of the profession should view them any differently because of they are women. On the contrary, I believe you will find that these types of associations often exist to address the gender imbalances of professions, not to perpetuate them. Nigel Pap (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So what? That still isn't an argument to delete the category. Please read WP:EGRS which contains the guidelines for when such categories can be created. We have around 8000 women-specific categories here. It doesn't really matter WHY such associations and books and biographical dictionaries and conferences and commissions exist - the point is, they study women + historian as a special topic, and that is enough to support a category accordingly.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from EGRS there's also the more general requirement that any category should be based on a defining characteristic. So the question is, is the existence of women historians associations sufficient to make gender a defining characteristic of historians? I would rather say no, it's only a defining characteristic if women historians would execute their profession consistently differently from men (study other history topics, have other points of view, etc.) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so. Category:American folklorists is a subcategory of Category:American antiquarians, which is a non-diffusing subcategory of Category:American historians for some reason. So the American historians category would also be required in these instances. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
revising my previous comment. It appears Category:American_historians is "all inclusive" - e.g. all bios in subcategories are also expected to be in the parent. So, yes, Nancy and Anna should be added to Category:American historians. But this has nothing to do with JPL, who simply added a correct category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obi-Wan Kenobi, earlier you said "All of the contents of Category:Women historians should ALSO be in the neutral equivalent (e.g. Category:Historians by nationality and others as appropriate)) - that is longstanding policy", but just now you say "this has nothing to do with JPL, who simply added a correct category". Johnpacklambert added dozens of women to Category:Women historians. Does he have no responsibility to check that they are also in the other appropriate categories so that his actions are not in effect segregating women historians? If there is no expectation that he or any other editor will do that, aren't all of these "women" categories prone to such situations, even if that is not their intended purpose? Nigel Pap (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming that if he added them to "women historians", they were already "historians" elsewhere - otherwise on what basis did he add them? But in general, yes, "women" categories are prone to ghettoization, some more than others based on their structure (see WP:EGRS). Since this particular one has a full set of diffusing siblings, ghettoization is less likely. Anyway, Nigel, if you're really concerned about this, please come to my talk page and I can walk you through some tools I use to help identify and deghettoize categories. There are probably tens of thousands of biographies of women that are ghettoized today in one way or another, but the broader wikipedia community doesn't seem to care that much to actually DO the work of fixing it. If you'd like to help you'd be most welcome.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the "Men historians" category? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why assume what is easily checked? I've given you two examples already. I would like to help "deghettoize" biographies of women. I will start by voting to delete this category. Nigel Pap (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused here. Are you deleting this category because you don't believe any women+job categories should exist, or are you deleting this category because you think the intersection of women+historian is not a subject of study or discussion?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you confused about the other votes to delete the category or just mine? Nigel Pap (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Johnpacklambert, do you think the category "women historians" for historians who are women, or for historians (of either sex) whose field of study is women in history? Your comments above suggest it is the latter, but your use fof the category suggests it is the former. Nigel Pap (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that I am the creator of Category:American historians of religion, the most logical take away from my comments above is that I think Category:Historians of women would be for people who cover the subject of the history of women. That is in fact how I view this. This is for women who are historians, just like Category:Women biologists, is for women who are biologists, not biologists who study how women's bodies work, and Category:Women chemists is for women who are chemists, and Category:Women judges is for women who are judges, and on and on and on and on. Since Kathleen Flake's biggest work has been on the Reed Smoot hearings, it should be clear that I do not think this topic should be limited to those who specialize in the history of women. However, I should point out the Category:Historians of religion was not created by me, nor was Category:Historians of the Latter Day Saint movement, nor was Category:Historians of California. The idea that this is women historians, like Category:French historians and not like Category:Historians of France is part of a broadly understood decision on how we use "x historians" and "historians of x".John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then I really don't see what your comments about Carol Cornwall Madsen have to do with this deletion discussion, but I am glad that we all seem to be interpreting the category the same way, as a category for female historians. Thanks. Nigel Pap (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The very first point in WP:EGRS states "Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic.". In 2014, gender is not relevant to being a historian. If gender were truly relevant, we would categorize all historians by gender, not simply separate out the women. WP:EGRS says nothing about "being the subject of scholarly research". It does say "A gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic." but it follows by saying that such categories should not "directly contain individual women or individual men.". As important as female historians have been in the development of of the study of women in history, they are not themselves the subject. Professional associations for women exist for many professions, particularly those which have been historically dominated by men. This does not imply that women in the profession have different professional qualification or function differently than men in the same profession. It simply reflects that women may have different concerns in their role within the profession. The Organization of American Historians has a committee which "engages with all professional issues relevant to historians with disabilities". Should we have a Category:Disabled historians? As you say, "we do not live in a post-sexism world" but we do not need to perpetuate the sexism here. Nigel Pap (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Several "women" category talk pages link to two previous discussions about the naming. One is from 2007 and the other is from 2013 ([10], [11]). My reading of those discussions is that there is a general knee-jerk resistance to renaming so many categories. The number of cases raised where "women" is a better descriptor than "female" is actually quite small. Perhaps the best way forward is to try renaming a small number of categories before attempting to make the case for changing them all. Nigel Pap (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nigel. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might have meant to say "why we almost always create a category for women but not one for men". I was not able to find the discussion you mention. Do you have a link? Nigel Pap (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking for myself, I became interested in this following your edits related to the Group of 88. Categories should not be used as tools to advance political views. "Women X" categories are not neutral categories. Nigel Pap (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your entire failure to assume good faith is disturbing. This has absolutely no connection to the Group of 88, so you should not have even mentioned it here. Attempts to remove women specific categories have regularly been attacked as sexist, I know because I have been called such on some of my proposals for such, so I think some people need to look at this issue from all sides. Many of the people here seem to be acting like this is a nationality specific category with issues that come with those, this is not. Are people really prepared to say that being a women while being a historian is not a significant intersection that effects the persons career in Afghanistan, Iraq or Egypt? Some of the comments seem to come from a narrow, American view of a discipline that has practitioners from all over the world. Wikipedia is not only supposed to take a broad historical view, but to avoid being biased to the ideas prevalent in a particular place.John Pack Lambert (talk)
You posed a question, which I answered honestly and in good faith. You don't like my answer. Do women who are historians in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Egypt do a different job than men in those same places? Nigel Pap (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clearer principles would help. Sometimes a parent category seems to be a catch all for bios no one knew how to or cared to put into subcategories. Other times it seems like a badge of honor and removal to be "ghettoization". The whole thing seems pretty arbitrary, leading to conflict. If there is some principle, let's make it clear. If not, just say that people can be put in both - because some people ARE put in both - and leave it that way if you find it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:13, 24 July 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:Proposed public transport in Brazil

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Proposed rail infrastructure in Brazil, Category:Proposed rail infrastructure in Colombia, Category:Proposed rail infrastructure in Croatia, Category:Proposed rail infrastructure in Hungary respectively. This close takes account of support for that layer at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 14. – Fayenatic London 13:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose upmerging:
Nominator's rationale: Too small category to keep (currently one article). Marcocapelle (talk) 13:36, 13 July 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:Stubs about Wikipedia

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, and move stub to ((Wikimedia-stub)). – Fayenatic London 13:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename and rescope - the current scope of the category has only 42 stubs; the proposed scope brings the number up to 64 stubs. I think we should create a ((Wikimedia-stub)) for the rescoped category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:03, 13 July 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:Olusegun Obasanjo

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category entirely consists of the family of Olusegun Obasanjo and is thus better organised as a family category. SFB 09:17, 13 July 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:Lists of Commonwealth Games medallists by sport

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:Lists of Commonwealth Games medallists. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are no other lists by any other method so the two articles can be placed in the parent Category:Lists of Commonwealth Games medallists, which is currently empty. SFB 09:14, 13 July 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:American television stations seen 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Non-defining characteristic of these stations; as constituted, the category is also laughably incomplete, as literally a few dozen stations should be in the category rather than three. We already have List of United States stations available in Canada, so proposing it for "listify" isn't necessary — but we don't need the category to match it since it's not a defining characteristic of the stations. Bearcat (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any TV station within a certain distance of the Canada-US border would be receivable in Canada, so that's not a list that we would particularly need or be able to actually maintain with any degree of completeness or accuracy. Bearcat (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia makes no claims of completeness, and as for the maintainability, it should be easily maintainable, as we are mot keeping a temporal list. We can reference if a station has been received over-the-air in Canada. We don't need to keep track of if we can right now receive it. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I already pointed out, List of United States stations available in Canada already exists — so we don't need a second list covering the same thing. Bearcat (talk) 14:40, 14 July 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