Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 6

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< January 5 January 7 >

January 6

Category:French women judges

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Proper grammar Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 18:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Female" is a biological term, but this is a societal topic. "Women judges" is widely used in reliable sources. See e.g. 783 hits in scholarly works on JSTOR for "Women judges", vs 591 hits for "Female judges". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For many reasons. A-the actual usage is much more in the camp of women judge. B-the parent category Category:Women judges and Category:Women judges by nationality use this form. C-Judges are adults, and women is the most respectful term for human adult females. D-Currently there is a discussion trending the other way for Category:female diplomats, where all commentators to date have advocated the change. E-there have been multiple attempts where people have literally nominated every single category we have that is a subcategory of Category:Women that uses either women or female and tried to either get them all moved to female, get them all moved to women, or make them all uniform. I have to commend the dedication of those who have done that, because there are so many categories covered here. Probably over 1000 when the last nomination was tried, and even more now. Some may have even tried to see if Category:Actresses and its sub-categories should be renamed to either Category:Female actors or Category:Women actors. However there has never been a successful consensus for mass renaming. Instead the closest to consensus we have gotten is that such categories should follow the lead of the closest and most relevant parents. So Category:Women judges is the most obvious. Category:Women lawyers is another. It was renamed in April 2014 from Category:Female layers. On the French side, the ultimate parent is Category:French women. Of its 22 direct categories, 17 use women, 1 uses females, 3 are duchesses, empresses and countesses. I just added Category:French queens consorts. Then there is Category:French beauty pageant winners, in which the whole contents are evidently women by default. Of the 32 sub-cats of Category:French women by occupation, 24 use women in their names, 3 use females (dancers, models and musicians) and 5 use titles that are only applied to women (actreeses, coutesans, ladies-in-waiting, nuns and religious sisters, midwives). From academics, to lawyers, to psychiatrists, to writers, the term women is used. So the general trend seems to be that any position that requires specific training is going to be denoted with women. There is one sub-cat of Category:French women scientists that does not follow this convention, I am going to look into fixing that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – rather a perverse nom, given the admirable consistency in
    Oculi (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment The off page is Category:Female geologists which is inconsistent with most other dub-cats of Category:Women scientists. I am going to be busy for a while, so I might not make the nonination any time soon. I am not sure this is the only outlier, and it has several nationality subcats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There may be a valid case to be made that we should move all of Category:Women judges by nationality and its subcategories to "female" instead of "women" — but that would need to be proposed as a batch discussion on all of them rather than applying to this one alone. So I'd be willing to listen in good faith to a comprehensive proposal, but I can't support this in isolation: regardless of whether we settle on "women" or "female", this and its siblings need to be consistent with each other. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2018 (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:Governors of Kenya

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:Colonial governors and administrators of Kenya. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: to avoid confusion with Category:County Governors of Kenya; I have just purged a few miscategorised articles.
Proposed new title is similar to List of colonial governors and administrators of Kenya. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest Category:Colonial governors and rulers of Kenya. The list article covers a series of different titles. This title is intended to enable us to have administrators, governors, and the one Governor-general (who really does not need a one-man category). There may be something better still. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principal. I am not sure governor is the best term, but I am hesitant about ruler. My initial impression is that the colonial rulers would be Elizabeth II, etc. Which is totally different than the governors, and I am less than convinced the vast extent of a multi-nationam colonial empire makes each subject area defining to the Emperor/Empress/what ever title they use. Is Woodrow Wilson to be defined as a colonial ruler of The Philippines? What of Hawaii? American Samoa? I don't think that is the course we want to go down. Maybe calling the category Colonial administrators of Kenya would work. We need to keep in mind that we categorize by job, not be title. Thus for example Category:French queens consort merges the wives of both kings and emperors. The main reason it only has the wives is because France has never had a ruling queen. Queens consort and Princes consort can generally be dplit on lots of grounds related to different perceived roles. On the other hand if a place had bounced between using the title king consort and prince consort we would put all in the same category without regard to title. It is true that change in title often does signify a different job, a president is never quite the same as a queen, even if we compare the president of Israel and Queen Elizabeth II, where both are virtually powerless heads of state.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest Category:Colonial governors and administrators of Kenya per List of colonial governors and administrators of Kenya. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The alternative suggestions all miss the point that the 15 people in this category all held the title of Governor/Governors-General of Kenya‎/ East Africa Protectorate. This is a well-populated category of top dogs, and I see no need for a rename which would broaden its scope. My proposed rename is to resolve ambiguity, not change scope.
There may be a case for creating a broader parent cat, reflecting the scope of the list ... but I don't see any need to dilute this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:10, 8 January 2018 (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:Liberal democracies

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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, determining if a democracy really is a liberal democracy becomes too subjective. There is some discussion about this on the category talk page as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2018 (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's sport competitions at the Olympic Games

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. A consensus reached to approach this in a different manner. Tone 17:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting
Nominator's rationale: Essentially, almost all sports at the Olympics have events both for men and women, meaning that half of all (at least recent) Olympic sport articles would fall into this category. The parent category, Category:Women's sports competitions is instead dedicated to women-only competitions. Also, Category:Women's sport competitions at the 2018 Winter Olympics should be deleted per same rationale.Tone 10:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Creator comment: It all started when I was creating pages for competitions at the 2018 Olympics and noticed that all women's competitions at the 2014 Olympics were categorized into Category:2014 in women's sport. I started to add similar category, Category:2018 in women's sport, and noticed that it became overpopulated with the pages on Olympic competitions. This is why I created Category:Women's sport competitions at the 2018 Winter Olympics to keep them confined, and subsequently Category:Women's sport competitions at the Olympic Games to host pages on other Olympics. I sympathize with the argument of the nominator that they are not useful (we actually discussed at my talk page before they opened the nomination), but I seriously doubt whether the whole categorization tree of women's sport (Category:Women's sports) is useful (and if it survives the Cfd, I am certainly going to create a similar tree for men's sport, because the current discrimination against men is not really acceptable). Just deleting Category:Women's sport competitions at the Olympic Games but keeping the upstream categories would make all these files landing back into Category:2018 in women's sport which is IMO impractical.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter: I agree with the first three sentences of what you wrote above and your last sentence, but I dunno where you get the idea there is some discrimination here. We already have a Category:Men's sports as a pair to Category:Women's sports. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl:, there is a heavily populated category Category:Years in women's sport, but there is no category (and no subcats) Category:Years in men's sport. It should be created and populates (along with mixed sport) if the women's sports one survives this CfD.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter: Sure, Category:Years in men's sport should be created. But no need to await the outcome of this discussion: Category:Years in women's sport is not up for deletion. The scope of this discussion is the two Olympic categs listed above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and create more like it. Most Olympic events are gendered as either men-only or women-only, though a small minority are mixed. Gender is therefore a
    WP:DEFINING
    characteristic of Olympic events, so they should be categorised as such.
However, the parent categories use the "term events" (e.g. Category:2018 Winter Olympics events) rather than the more verbose "sport competitions". So we should have 3 gender trees for Olympic events:
  1. Category:Men's events at the Olympic Games, Category:Men's events at the Winter Olympics, Category:Men's events at the 2018 Winter Olympics, Category:Men's events at the Summer Olympics, Category:Men's events at the 2016 Summer Olympics, etc
  2. Category:Women's events at the Olympic Games, Category:Women's events at the Winter Olympics, Category:Women's events at the 2018 Winter Olympics, Category:Women's events at the Summer Olympics, Category:Women's events at the 2016 Summer Olympics, etc
  3. Category:Mixed events at the Olympic Games, Category:Mixed events at the Winter Olympics, Category:Mixed events at the 2018 Winter Olympics, Category:Mixed events at the Summer Olympics, Category:Mixed events at the 2016 Summer Olympics, etc (per Category:Mixed sports)
Congrats to Ymblanter for identifying the need and starting the process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case, it would probably be reasonable to have categories within events. For example, Category:Figure skating at the 2018 Winter Olympics would have subcategories men's, women's, and mixed. I am perfectly fine with this approach. --Tone 13:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tone and Ymblanter: since there seems to be agreement, is there any need to keep this discussion open? Tone can withdraw the nom if they want to. No pressure, just a suggestion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am fine with closing the nomination. Regarding consensus, we have it, but only three of us participated in the debate. Since the modification of the categorization scheme will have large implications (affect hundreds/thousands of articles), maybe we need some more feedback from the community? But perhaps there is a better venue for that? +--Tone 17:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Tone: the nom is free to withdraw a nomination which hasn't been supported. Up to you, but personally I think it's a pity to keep a discussion running when an editor has been at work on a topic. If the concerns are resolved, I reckon its better to close. But you are the nom, so your call. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:11, 6 January 2018 (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.

Fooian bureaucrats

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: distribute to Category:Pakistani civil servants, Category:Bangladeshi civil servants and Category:Indian civil servants, as appropriate, recognizing not everyone in the categories is a civil servant. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Propose manually deleting:
Nominator's rationale: per
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. The vagueness of the term "bureaucrat" is why we have no wider Category:Bureaucrats
: it has too many meanings. Is it any office-worker? Any civil servant or govt official? Or just those with an officious attitude? Does it include bureaucracy in private companies, or is it limited to govt?
Most of the article here belong in the Category:Pakistani civil servants or Category:Bengali civil servants (which doesn't exist yet but maybe should be created). Deletion should be done manually so that everything ends up in an appropriate place, without over-categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:02, 6 January 2018 (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:WNBL 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: moot. The TfD was closed as delete by @Plastikspork, who also deleted the resulting empty category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Please see
talk) 06:57, 6 January 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_6&oldid=978245193"