< December 22 December 24 >

December 23

Category:Segmented Interstate Highways

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. MER-C 12:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivial category. Dough4872 23:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category was requested by HeatIsCool at WP:AFC/R, and was created as it seemed to be a non-trivial subset of interstate highways with a reasonable number of member pages. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 05:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These aren't "segmented interstates" so much as cases where the same number got reused for multiple interstates, as the highways are unrelated aside from their number and there are no plans to connect any of them. (A segmented highway would be something more like U.S. Route 2, where the two sections are explicitly considered to be the same highway, and gaps like that on interstates are usually temporary and not worth categorizing.) While it's not terribly common for two-digit interstates, repetition of numbers happens all the time with three-digit interstates and isn't especially noteworthy. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:09, 24 December 2015 (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:Yazidi language

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. – Fayenatic London 19:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I just closed an RfD for Yazidi language, where there was consensus that there's no such thing. Even the only article in the category indicates that the supposed language is just Northern Kurdish. BDD (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2015 (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:Top 14 squad navigational boxes

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) 09:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: If the Top 14 and Pro D2 categories are merged, a reclassification doesn't need to happen on an annual basis following promotion/relegation. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2015 (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:English Premiership (rugby union) squad navigational boxes

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) 09:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: If the Premiership and Championship categories are merged, a reclassification doesn't need to happen on an annual basis following promotion/relegation. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2015 (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:Male translators

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 both. The arguments in favour of keeping were weak. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Category:Women translators is also being considered for deletion/merging in the discussion below. -RD
Nominator's rationale: we have encyclopaedic categories for Translators by nationality and century. Being male or female is not a defining feature, in fact potentially a gender bias as there are more male Translators on WP than female. LibStar (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closing Admin: The women category was not tagged until 7 hours after the original nomination; please be sure to leave a full week from that time before closing the nomination. – RevelationDirect (talk) 04:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I disagree these categories would constitute gender-bias. They rather expose Wikipedia's already existing gender bias, and at least for that reason are useful. They might be turned into a hidden tracking category though, but that would require a larger debate. --PanchoS (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: I am notorious for creating women categories on wikipedia and would like say in that my opinion the fuss was a Tempest in a teapot that got fanned into a flame by CfD-insiders who ghettoized women against policy. Here is why:
The reason for creating women categories is simple: Almost invariably in every biography-related category (including this particular one under discussion) there are many more biographies about men than about women. There is a lot of speculation about this state of affairs and many editors are working to try and correct this ‘systemic bias'. It helps the efforts to have separate women-only categories so editors can easily gauge the areas that need work more urgently.
Since having women ghettoized in their own categories is counter-productive, the solution was to create such categories with a non-diffusing template that states (in this particular example} :
This is a non-diffusing subcategory of Category:Translators. It includes translators that can also be found in the parent category, or in diffusing subcategories of the parent
So, as long as everyone respects non-diffusing categories there is no need to delete gender-only categories - it is a win-win situation. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
@RevelationDirect: Tagging the page is not sufficient to include it this discussion. You should notify the page creator, notify the editors who already voted before the nomintion was changed, add it to the nomination list and make sure the closing Admin allows for extra time. Ottawahitech (talk) 03:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
Let's discuss here: User talk:Ottawahitech#Untagging Categories in Open Category for Discussion Nominations. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After re-reading your comment, you gave concrete concerns so I'll address them here: I noted in the header that the discussion has broadened. I notified the closing admin that this should stay open an extra 7 hours. I'm under no obligation to notify the category creator but they're inactive in any case. The only editor contribution before my suggestion who hasn't already been pinged was @PanchoS: who is now notified. Thanks for your diligence to ensure a valid process here. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(For what it is worth, the category "Female winners of the Croix de Guerre" has now been created.)
yes I support. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to dig deeper into the norm. I am an non-typical Alpha-male, in a house run by two women and have three independent daughters. They allow me to beat my chest, "claim" my territory, and then carry on as usual. I have been married going on 40 years and have a deep respect for women, in the work place or not. My wife even drove over-the-rode (48 states and Canada) with me as my co-driver for five years and was often subjected to bias. She is a great truck driver and received equal pay that we had to fight for. I joke that I am the boss of my house and I do exactly what they let get away with.
Anyway, I struggle with the idea of gender equality on Wikipedia, that includes internment or ghettoization, and regard non-diffusing subcategories as a step backwards. We need more active (and equally treated) editors on Wikipedia, that are not males (how was that for reversal), and treatment and coverage should be impartial. How can we accomplish that with "separate but equal"? How can we stem gender-bias with biased coverage or separation? I have been waiting for Wikipedia to fall into the Hollywood practice of calling all actors/actresses an actor then recreating the gender sub-division cycle by having to add male/female. On Wikipedia this would likely change "American actress" into "American female actor". IMDb has made the switch and re-division with "Actors/ Male" and "Actors/Female/".
  • Conclusion: Then I read, "It helps the efforts to have separate women-only categories so editors can easily gauge the areas that need work more urgently", and then I can see a definite purpose. Sometimes it seems sound reasoning can win a battle, as something that can help decrease systemic bias can not be harmful, and might just "expose Wikipedia's already existing gender bias". Well crap, this means it will definitely be deleted now!
  • Keep: Since it can serve a very useful and logical purpose I suppose we better get rid of it. Otr500 (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose to turning into a non-diffusing category, as DexDor clearly explained above. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2016 (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:Advocacy organizations in Oregon

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge as indistinguishable. As this was also a sub-cat of "Politics of Oregon", I have just also added it into Category:Political advocacy groups in the United States, so an alternative would be a rename to Category:Political advocacy groups in Oregon or, as not all the member pages here are specifically political, Category:Advocacy groups in Oregon. However, I don't think keeping or renaming would be useful, as many others in the Non-profit parent category also advocate things. – Fayenatic London 12:47, 23 December 2015 (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:Cleaners

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. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SHAREDNAME
This category groups occupation articles with the name "cleaners" in it which is non-definning, especially since these will fit so nicely into the parent category. (Alternatively, if kept, we should rename it to Category:Cleaning occupations to make it clear this is not a biography category.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Berk as the likely category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Home Living. – RevelationDirect (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Blue Rasberry: Have a look at Category:Cleaners -- Will you change your vote now that the category contains only biographies? Ottawahitech (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
  • Comment I started trying to fix this category and its neighborhood but then had second thoughts - should I even try or am I simply wasting my time? Ottawahitech (talk) 04:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
  • Note Ottawahitech may be interested in creating a category with this same name that would house biography articles for people who are cleaners once this nomination is complete. So that this nomination can proceed, I'm recreating the original contents to avoid any appearance that it was emptied out of order. No objection to Ottawahitech recreating a different category under the same name. (See here for further discussion.) RevelationDirect (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2015 (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:African American missionaries

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. Looking at the manual or partial merges (which I considered keeps of the category itself) they are more supported than the full upmerge/deletion votes. As for better definitions of the category or the like, that's better for an RFC than here since there's no consensus here on the scope of the category itself. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recently-created category of unclear purpose. Is it for American missionaries who worked in Africa, African missionaries who worked in America, or something else? If it's for missionaries who are African Americans, do we categorise to that level? I don't see similar in Category:Missionaries. Redrose64 (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't Alan Cherry fit? He was an African American and a missionary. --BDD (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because the mere intersection of ethnicity and being a missionary is not what this would work covering. It would only work if it is an intersection of religious affiliation and being a missionary. Thus, we could intersect being affiliated with African-American Protestantism and being a missionary. Alan Cherry and Keith Hamilton are not so affiliated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Carlos, we do have Category:African-American religious leaders. --BDD (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That should be deleted as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2016 (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:Freemasonry templates

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 parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: SMALLCAT. There is no way this cat will ever get bulked out enough to need navigation, as many of the potential items have been nuked in the past per overcat. MSJapan (talk) 08:40, 23 December 2015 (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:Federal Emergency Management Agency critics

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. For posterity, I want to note that Hurricane Katrina was in this category when it was deleted. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting Category:Federal Emergency Management Agency critics
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT and WP:NONDEFINING
This category consists mostly of politicians and journalists who have been critical of FEMA, mostly about the Hurricane Katrina response around 2005. The problem is that none of these people made a long-term career out of FEMA criticism; they addressed crime, FEMA deficiencies, tax policy, job growth and other issues. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Richard David Ramsey as the likely category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Disaster management. – RevelationDirect (talk) 03:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
More