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 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: This category contains two small categories and no pages. It is a superfluous additional layer that makes it harder for users to access the information they seek. Nsw2042 (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate, and rename to Category:Works about intersex. The name should the head article intersex. The list of categories for renaming below this shows that the category could be better populated ... and removing this layer from the category hierarchy would break consistency, making it harder to navigate and harder to maintain. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Part of the reason that the categories are underpopulated is that they have been inadequately parented, so editors would have difficulty finding them. I have been adding parent categories, which should help, but this is already a viable {{container category}}, which assists navigation. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I also should note that I don't agree with the fundamental problem: the categories are underpopulated primarily because material on intersex issues is scarce (and, IMHO, often regarded as non-notable). Nsw2042 (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2013 (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.
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 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:International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association
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. I accept BrownHairedGirl's argument that the nomination reason is flawed, and I find no space in Wikipedia policies for the general thrust of Peterkingiron's reasoning. I also note that several of the articles mentioned as potential members are now bluelinks, so the triviality argument has not withstood the test of time. -Splash - tk21:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is a single one item in this category, a page with the same name as the category. Seems superfluous. Nsw2042 (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are now 3 items in the category, after I added 2 just from the "see also" list on the head article, which suggests that the nominator didn't do much scrutiny. ILGA is a global organisation with regional chapter roughly corresponding to continents. There currently appears to to be no article on ILGA-Asia, ILGA-North America, ILGA-Africa, or ILGA-LAC, but there may be scope for developing those into articles. Additionally, ILGA's reports are widely studied (see over 6,000 hits on Google Books), and may themselves be the subject of encyclopedic articles. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did note that, but I still don't see the relevance of the category. Maybe that's partly because of the way it out-balances other materials on specific intersex organisations. The parent category is underpopulated. Nsw2042 (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Intersex is a rare physical condition where a person is partly both male and female. LGBT is a mental condition, where a person wants to be (or pretend to be) a member of the opposite sex. These are quite different things. ILGA appears to be an attempt by the LGBT community to appropriate Intersex. Intersex people may have difficulties, because their condition is rare and contrary to the norm. WP should not be encouraging this confusion. We have much on LGBT, but not LGBTI band-waggoning. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment those are very subjective statements, Peterkingiron, somewhat based on conjecture, and controversial. This is not the Iris Prize. My concerns are simply whether or not it's appropriate for an organisation to have a category associated with it, and the way in which notability in the area of intersex seems most often to depend upon activity in other (related) areas. Nsw2042 (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the merits of the association, it's just too trivial to have a category with one or two articles. Delete. Peterkingiron, please stick to the merits of the category. Bearian (talk) 23:12, 28 January 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.
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 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.
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 suggested rename to Category:Intersex literature doesn't resolve other duplication and mis-description issues. With a rename to Category:Intersex literature it simply duplicates Category:Intersexuality in fiction and Category:Novels about intersexuality. It also mis-describes: the 3 pages that are in this category are all examples of non-fiction, so the current description of the category seems inappropriate. It reads, "This category should only contain literature (prose, drama and poetry) that deals with or features important Intersex characters or issues." I appreciate that my suggestion may not be the only satisfactory possible outcome, but the broader issues need attention Nsw2042 (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand the way that the category system works as a lattice. Removing one part of that framework messes up the system and isolates material. The non-fiction pages should simply be categorised in a new category, but without removing this category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:31, 21 December 2013 (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.
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 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The key page Intersexuality was moved to Intersex in 2010, see talk page [[1]]. The rationale is the same: terms ending in sexuality usually refer to issues of sexuality. Shifting the category would bring the related category into line with the approved shift in name of page. Nsw2042 (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2013 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: There is only one item in this category, which appears to have been created on 29 May 2011. The category itself is only incidental to the main theme of the single page in the category, which is a gay and lesbian film award (possibly the perceived need for the category arises from the sometime use of LGBTI as a portmanteau rather than LGBT but it's inappropriate to duplicate all LGBT categories as Intersex categories in this way). Nsw2042 (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2013 (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.
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.
Upmerge per nom. If we are to have this it should in Anglican deans in Great Britain, for reasons given by BHG. However, the Church of England, Church in Wales, and Episcopal Church of Scotland are independent members of the Anglican Communion, so they should not be combined. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2013 (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.
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.
Question - are albums "published"? I would think Category:Albums recorded under a pseudonym would be correct. However, we recently deleted categories for musicians and rappers who use pseudonyms. Wouldn't every album recorded by any of the artists formerly so categorized be eligible for inclusion in this category? Does this category therefore aid in navigation by a defining characteristic? I am tending toward thinking no but can be persuaded. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- Of course, albums that are issued for sale are "published". If I have a quibble about this at all, it is that many artistes record (and publish) under a stage name, which is technically (at least) a pseudonym. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - amplifying on my previous comments, given that being a musical performer who performs under a pseudonym has been deemed not a defining characteristic of the performer it seems impossible that the same non-defining attribute can somehow be defining of those artists' product. This constitutes a back door into categorizing musicians by using pseudonyms and that door should remain closed. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2013 November 21 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
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.
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. (Minor note: I don't really follow the logic of the nomination. If they are not performers and do not have performances, then this cannot be a....!)-Splash - tk21:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is not a performance or award category, it appears to be a job within the White House. The article lists six (from 1961),including two red-links. If we have the articles, we should have the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:White House chefs. I just noticed we also have articles on some of the executive pastry chefs, and see no real reason to split the the various offices so much, especially when there seem to have been to date only three white house executive pastry chefs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a well-known position at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. If there is an error in who is in the category, that's for normal editing, not this discussion. Bearian (talk) 23:24, 28 January 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.
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/merge. Note that not all of these were tagged, but given the history of this type of request, approval seems like a given. It will take a while to get these done since it is a manual process. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Country wasn't called Zimbabwe until 1980. This swathe of categories should be renamed to reflect the contemporary name of the country. For simplicity's sake I would put categories for Southern Rhodesia from 1895 to 1964, Rhodesia from 1964 to 1979 and Zimbabwe thereafter (alternatively Southern Rhodesia up to 1979 and Zimbabwe starting from 1980, to make things even simpler). For years before 1895 (where necessary) we should use Zimbabwe in the absence of a contemporary name for the country, or alternatively Matabeleland or Mashonaland as appropriate —Cliftonian(talk)10:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. This is quite right in principle, but if we are going to make the change, it should be done consistently for all relevant categories. If the nominator would like to expand this nomination to include them (see instructions at WP:CFD#HOWTO), I would be happy to support it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I've done this correctly. As you can see some of the "new" categories already exist, so in these cases it would be a case of merging two categories covering the same things. —Cliftonian(talk)19:04, 20 December 2013 (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.
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 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.
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. As has been pointed out, we generally do not keep categories with one entry if they are not a part of a series. If there are more members at a later date where this is defining, the category can be recreated. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Single-entry category that is both too narrow and too broad. The current occupant is the only verified death in a particular pogrom but the name of the category implies there was only one pogrom. I have added the article to appropriate murder victim categories. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears this category has had only one member article, Róża Berger, since some time in 2007. The purpose of categories is not to "capture the nuance" of anything, nor to serve as a tribute to anyone or anything. It is to group some number of related articles in logical ways to make them more accessible and facilitate research on a concept. This category seems to be a failure in that regard. Either someone needs to commit to taking the time to research and add articles to this category, or it should be deleted/merged with another category. I suggest it should be deleted until such time as someone has compiled a list of candidate articles, at which time it can be recreated. DwpaulTalk 03:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "Róża Berger" category was created during an edit war for the meaning of her killing by a communist soldier afraid of an ambush. She died because she refused to show herself from behind a closed door. Some Wikipedians argued (at another article) that it was not a pogrom while others insisted that it was, so the Category:Pogrom victims was created for her as a backdoor method of inserting an POV opinion. Poeticbenttalk05:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All three reasons of the nominator are flawed. First reason is a known non-reason: there is only one entry now, but there is room for many more. Second reason is too vague: "too narrow and too broad" is not one of the reasons for deletion that are known to me. The third reason is a reason to rename to "Victims of pogroms". But that would imply that they were victims of more than one pogrom, so in short I think the present name is best. Debresser (talk) 11:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OC#SMALL is a well-established criterion for deletion. If there are legions of pogrom victims who suddenly acquire articles then the subject of the category can be revisited. No idea what you're on about regarding the rest of the nomination. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OC#SMALL is indeed a well-established criterion for deletion, but is legitimately used only in cases where it applies. Jerry, if you actually take look at WP:OC#SMALL, it does include the word "small" but then adds "...with no potential for growth". Unlike categories that "by their very definition, will never have more than a few members" (examples offered there are The Beatles' wives, Husbands of Elizabeth Taylor and Catalan-speaking countries), categories such as this one, which "have realistic potential for growth", are not targeted for deletion. Are you arguing that the number of articles for pogrom victims will never expand or do you have your own idiosyncratic reading of OC#SMALL that is both too narrow and too broad? Alansohn (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ignoring your trademark snark, if a category has remained at population one for well over six years, that seems a reasonable argument that it isn't going to expand any time soon. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate -- Pogroms were a specific kind of anti-semetic violence in 19th century Russia (then ruling Poland). I do not think it was limited to Poland. It may be that is is underrepresented in WP bio-articles; if so, it is a deficiency that needs to be corrected, as I cannot believe that all victims were NN. Since this was something that the state acquiesced in (possibly even encouraged), it is particularly heinous; obviously not on the scale of the holocaust; but it is still worse than a normal murder. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from 2013 December 5 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Delete The fact that people have had ample time to add more entries and have not suggests there are not more biographies. This is a one entry category, and I see no real claims of who other notable pogrom victims are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that comment. Not being an expert of this area of history, I do not know the number of people who were killed or who the victims were. This is essentially about the persecution of Jews in Tsarist Russia. This was less serious than the holocaust, but was a major driver of Jewish emigration to UK and USA; and thus why there are more Jews in New York than in Israel (or so it is claimed). Peterkingiron (talk) 13:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/upmerge. Biography articles should mainly be categorized by what the person did that made them notable (e.g. their occupation). Categorization should not attempt to capture the nuances of how they died. See essay WP:DNWAUC. DexDor (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2013 (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.
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 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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 29. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
