Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 9

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< February 8
February 10 >

February 9

Category:1913 Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association football season

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: procedural keep. This needs a mass nomination (I'm happy to help if needed).
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: There's only a page and the template in here. I've added the main page to the 1913 football season category. Mason (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be nominated together with its siblings. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; part of a well-established, highly-structured categorization scheme. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete per nom. Others in similar situation should also be nominated. Let'srun (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • This is one of thousands like it; I do not understand why we want to stray from order to disorder, rather than stay orderly and organized. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2024 (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:Fascists by ethnicity

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 (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This category is a redudant layer. Mason (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2024 (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:Brooklyn Hills football seasons

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 (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 2 pages in category. Let'srun (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I have added a "see also" note directly in the article text. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2024 (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:Staten Island Cricket Club football seasons

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 (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two pages in category Let'srun (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I have added a "see also" note directly in the article text. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2024 (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:12th-century Christian universalists

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.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one person in this category, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
WP:SMALLCAT and the fact that it diffuses multiple navigation schemes. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Small cat is no longer wikipedia policy. What navigation schemes does it diffuse? Mason (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, isolated single-article category. The 15th-century sibling should be nominated too. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:10, 10 February 2024 (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:Breton 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: rename (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per C2C: Norm is to use Historians of SUBJECT, I'm not sure if this can be speedied because the main page is called List of Breton historians. But as named it could be historians who are ethnically Bretons Mason (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. This is clearly less ambiguous. The list may be renamed too. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Breton categories are often filled with people based on their link with the region rather than reliable information on their ethnicity anyway. Place Clichy (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2024 (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:6th-century Indian non-fiction writers

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 (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Redudant category layer. Each only has FOOian-century Indian scholars in it Mason (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2024 (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:21st-century Vietnamese calligraphers

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 (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are only 4 unique people across these three categories. Upmerge for now Mason (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now, without objection to recreate these categories when some more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:19, 10 February 2024 (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:21st-century Korean calligraphers

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 (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one (or two) people in each of these categories. Mason (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now, without objection to recreate these categories when some more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:20, 10 February 2024 (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:5th-century Chinese musicians

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.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: I propose broadening these categories to include musicians of any nationality. Mason (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle. I am surprised these categories do not exist yet. The articles should be manually added more specifically to musicians by dynasty categories instead of generally to Category:Ancient Chinese musicians. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2024 (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:Non-human characters in video games

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 17#Category:Non-human characters in video games


Category:Wives of Rupert Murdoch

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 (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category. Already handled at Category:Murdoch family, spouse categories are incredibly rare except for royalty etc. --woodensuperman 13:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Categories like these are not only intended for royalty. Dimadick (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, articles are already in Category:Murdoch family and perfectly fine there. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is this an inherently limited category? It's not like Murdoch will be having 4 or 5 more wives so there is little potential for growth. Liz Read! Talk! 19:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; as Liz notes, there is little to no potential for growth here. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2024 (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:Female soldiers

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. A larger discussion should be held for renaming "women" categories to "female".
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: A complete
WP:OVERLAPCAT. It used to be a redirect, but since User:AHI-3000 thinks it should be its own category, we should probably come to a consensus about whether it should exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Reverse merge. "Female soldiers" sounds grammatically better than "women soldiers", because "female" is an adjective and "women" is actually a plural noun. I also think this should be done for other occupational categories that are erroneously named with "Women" at the beginning of their page titles. AHI-3000 (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge per AHI-3000, and do not purge Category:Female child soldiers (as it fits under the umbrella "female"). If it is regularly-merged, then do purge. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge per discussion above. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note As Category:Female soldiers is the newer category, in order to preserve history, the merge should still be executed as I proposed, but then the category renamed to "Female soldiers". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Procedurally oppose. I think we should not be having a ton of these renaming women to female simultaneously. Mason (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if you oppose changing the name, surely you support both categories not existing at the same time, right? I don't understand why you would oppose even that. I have no preference on what name it ends up as, I just deferred to the one that has been stable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point. I'll support the merge in these circumstaces. Mason (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nominated with no prejuduice to a rename in a larger discussion. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2024 (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:Articles about multiple people

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 (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current title isn't really defining, as it refers to the article rather than the article subject. The rename would remedy that by making it clear it's talking about the subjects of each article. A move to this name failed in 2011, but for an odd reason - they claimed that 2 people were not a "group". Merriam-Webster defines group as "two or more", so this is flat-out wrong. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Without context it is a somewhat odd title, but it is a container category so it won't lead to confusion for editors of articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:06, 10 February 2024 (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 from the New York metropolitan area by city

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 (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are towns, townships, cities, and more in this category. Rename accordingly. See related: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_4#Category:American_people_by_city_and_occupation –Aidan721 (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2024 (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 American people by city

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 (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not all places are cities in this category. Rename per prior precedents including Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_4#Category:American_people_by_city_and_occupation. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2024 (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.

Fictional characters by descent

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 17#Fictional characters by descent

Category:19th-century Roman Catholic bishops in the Papal States

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 18#Category:19th-century Roman Catholic bishops in the Papal States

Category:Modern Latin-language writers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 18#Category:Modern Latin-language writers

Category:Speeches by Bahram Beyzai

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.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 12:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one speech in each, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2024 (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:Atheist writers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 18#Category:Atheist writers

Category:Dutch atheist writers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 18#Category:Dutch atheist writers

Category:Pride parades in Nevada

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 (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2024 (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:BBC World Service foreign language

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 18#Category:BBC World Service foreign language

Category:GA-Class Nazi Germany articles

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 15:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These articles should not be manually added, but added through WikiProject banner templates. These (as far as I can tell) are not connected to any task force or WikiProject.
WP:WikiProject Nazi Germany redirects to Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany but Template:WikiProject Germany does not have a task force for it. Also while Wikipedia:Nazi affiliation task force exists, there isn't a main category for that task force. Gonnym (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These deletions seems reasonable. I don't have strong opinions. Has anyone asked the Wikiproject what they'd like to do with it? Mason (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am going to relist this and drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:24, 9 February 2024 (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:Translators of Ray Bradbury

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 18#Category:Translators of Ray Bradbury

Category:Translators of Agatha Christie

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 (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:OCASSOC --woodensuperman 10:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2024 (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:Humor and wit 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: no consensus.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 12:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Seems like a complete overlap; humor and wit is by definition comedy. Category was also made by a blocked user. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question about the target: does "comedy" include folklore tales? Because that is what a number of articles are about. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the characters aren't explicitly comedic, they should probably just be purged. Calling a non-comedic character humorous or not, is personal opinion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:21, 9 February 2024 (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:Stand-up comedy concert films

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 (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are no separate Categories for non-concert films of stand-up comedy, so the disambiguation is unneeded. The Category was created in the early year of 2006. Recorded, edited and released long-form stand-up comedy acts are ubiquitously referred to as "specials". Separately, Wikipedia defines a concert as being a live musical performance in front of an audience. DA1 (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: The Primetime Emmy Awards nominates comedy specials under the category Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Variety Special (Pre-Recorded), and the Golden Globe Awards began in 2024 the Best Performance in Stand-Up Comedy on Television. DA1 (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:17, 9 February 2024 (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:Vikkstar123

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 18#Category:Vikkstar123

Women foos

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. If there are individual categories that should be renamed, they should be nominated individually. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 12:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Women" is a noun, "female" is an adjective. There are probably many categories I missed, but this is a good start. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I've started to think about this some more as the nom has been coming up. (I personally prefer being called a women, than being described as female).
1) These renames are going to wreck havoc on a ton of pre-existing templates, which just makes more work. Going from FOO female/woman to female/women FOO occupation splits the occupation category.
2) I do not want to see this trickle down into categories called Fooian females, because there are numerous undertones. I would like the previsions discussions related to these renames to be linked here.
3) I would really like some feedback from more women focused wikipedia groups.
4) I think women makes it clearer that being a women in the occupation is a defining feature, rather than someone who is female. Mason (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as "women" refers to gender, while "female" refers to sex.
    [OMT] 03:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support selected moves. Women does go in front of nouns. A recent phenomenon is to put "female" in front instead of women, which has only been happening in the past few decades. The thing about this change is that some fields still have "women" as more common.
Here is a listing on Google Ngrams to consider the most common:
An issue is that "women" applies only to adults whereas "female" is inclusive to children (girls). We had this issue on the List of female monarchs, which previously used "women monarchs" and was moved to "female".
To reply to
Women, where "female" refers to both gender and sex. —Panamitsu (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Oppose: As an 80-year-old Brit, my initial inclination was to use "female" as a qualifier, in both articles and categories on Wikipedia, but as a result of discussions with experts in the field such as SusunW I now frequently use "women" as a pseudo-adjective. For most sports though, "female" is widely used internationally and is generally more appropriate for Wikipedia categories, see Category:Sportswomen by sport. I would not support these being changed to "women", e.g. women baseball players. The many existing categories including "women" and "female" function well and are widely used. I strongly suggest they should be maintained.--Ipigott (talk) 07:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: as noun modifiers are so commonplace in informal writing, formal writing, and our category tree that the rationale is wrong. If there are other reasons to prefer "female", I'd love to her them. The Ngram analysis is nice, but we shouldn't choose one form over the other if the Ngrams show that they're close and there are other reasons (e.g. consistency) to stick with the slightly less common version. I would feel differently if one form were vastly more common than the other. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose: If you look at the history of women vs. female as a modifier, it dates to the 14th century. According to the Oxford English Dictionary woman first appeared as an adjective in 1382.[1] According to Webster's Dictionary,[2] Henry Fowler, who wrote the 1926 Dictionary of Modern English Usage, was the first scholar to insist that woman was a noun and female was an adjective. (Interestingly he argued that female suffrage was the correct term, and that women who opposed that phraseology were whiny, but the largest global organization pressing for suffrage was the
    International Woman Suffrage Alliance.) Journalists have varying opinions on whether woman can be a noun modifier.[3],[4],[5],[6],[7] Scholars have also debated the question[8], [9] and dictionaries disagree as well. According to "Grammar Girl" Mignon Fogarty Webster's (their article on usage indicates it's not cut and dry) and American Heritage indicate woman is a noun, Dictionary.com says woman can be used as a noun or adjective, and the Oxford English Dictionary states that woman can be used as an appositive noun.[10] Guardian reporter Maddie York, whose personal preference is for woman to be restricted to use as a noun, states that the Chamber's Dictionary considers the usage of female and woman to be interchangeable and the Collin's Dictionary lists woman as a modifier.[11] Given this history there is no logical reason the categories should be renamed to choose one word over another. SusunW (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose per most/all of the various different arguments above, and the sheer hassle of catching all of them, which I don't think the nom does. Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per above discussion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the oppose votes above. Trying to avoid repeating the arguments. -- Rohini (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per the various arguments given, things are not nearly as cut and dry as the nomination claims. It's amazing that somehow it was assumed that whoever made all these categories was unable to distinguish a noun from an adjective. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. Making such a change would be a prime example of trying to make language fit a rigid idea of consistency and correctness, rather than reflecting how language is actually used and understood by editors and readers. And in many cases, changing "women" to "female" would be borderline offensive, as it would abruptly draw attention to biological sex in contexts where it is not relevant. Note the difference between "She was the first woman astronaut to orbit the moon" and "Accommodating the bodies of the first female astronauts presented space suit designers with a new set of issues." Each of these sentences, I would argue, uses the best word in the context. Would support going with common usage, which is rarely consistent and often "incorrect". — scribblingwoman 19:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. As the founder of
    WP:WPWW in 2014, I can tell you that we had this conversation back then when deciding about creating new categories to support our WikiProject's work. Academics who focus on women's literature were part of the discussion (including off-wiki). In addition, my point of view is supported by the oppose arguments presented here by others. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Remove the women/female subcategories, or Add a "man" (for consistency with "woman") subcategory as well. Or have both "male"/"female" subcats. Either way we should be both equal-opportunity (subcats for both sexes/genders) and consistent (man/woman or male/female). Mitch Ames (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Remove the women/female subcategories — and the men/male subcategories (as Ipigott mentioned on my talk page), where they exist and are irrelevant to being a foo. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • support considerable effort has been on going for sometime to address the Bias singular terminology will help in the identification of such bias. Gnangarra 12:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you @Gnangarra unpack what you mean by "address the Bias singular terminology will help in the identification of such bias"? Mason (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "considerable effort has been on going for sometime to address the Bias..."
    WP:BIAS female catches the nuiances between women and transgender. Gnangarra 04:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The article you refer to appears to me to call for increased efforts in support of women. I see no call for standardizing terminology.--Ipigott (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's a special case but (a) 'female astronauts' is in common use, and (b) social gender isn't as relevant as biological sex. (Both male and female astronauts are biology research test subjects, among other roles.) (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk)
  • Oppose because the rationale is faulty. Noun adjuncts are a very standard part of English. We can debate whether using "female" or "women" properly reflects the focus of these categories, but we cannot do so starting from the false premise that there is any grammatical reason to prefer one or the other construction. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because the nom's rationale is incorrect as pointed out by the various other oppose !votes. TipsyElephant (talk) 06:16, 17 February 2024 (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:1910s business films

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 (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one page in here, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Let'srun (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2024 (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:1910 government budgets

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 (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Not enough content to support diffusing this decade by year Mason (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now, without objection to recreate the categories when some more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Small categories are more useful than decade-level categories for economic topics. The budgets should also be included in Category:x year in politics categories. Dimadick (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge for Now without objection to recreation later should more articles be published per
    WP:MFN. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2024 (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:Alpine skiing at the 1936 Winter Olympics

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 (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There was only 1 women's and men's alpine skiing event the 1936 Winter Olympics. Merge in the spirit of
WP:C2F. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2024 (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:Pre-14th century in sports

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 17#Category:Pre-14th century in sports

Category:Seasons in hockey

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 (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't need to categorize the intersection of seasons for ice hockey and field hockey. Not useful in any way. Merge. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories each. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Field hockey and ice hockey don't share anything besides the name. They belong to a larger family of Stick sports, which also include lacrosse, bandy, hurling, rink hockey etc. Place Clichy (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2024 (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:Seasons in United States Virgin Islands soccer

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/delete as nominated.
(non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:NARROWCAT. Merge/delete. The lone articles are already in the parent trees, so an additional merge is unnecessary. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2024 (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:Mesoamerican music

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 18#Category:Mesoamerican music

Category:Charities based in Romania

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: dual merge.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 12:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: 1 entry as per
WP:SMALLCAT. Suggest merge with parent. LibStar (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2024 (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:Seasons in Cook Islands football

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/delete as nominated.
(non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:NARROWCAT. Merge/delete. The lone articles are already in the parent trees, so an additional merge is unnecessary. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2024 (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:Seasons in Guinean football

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/delete as nominated.
(non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:NARROWCAT. Merge/delete. The lone articles are already in the parent trees, so an additional merge is unnecessary. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2024 (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/2024_February_9&oldid=1208671418"