Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 1

< April 30	May 2 >

May 1

Category:Spacecraft object

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The hidden category lists transclusions of {{Infobox spacecraft}}; a function which is redundant to Special:WhatLinksHere; and other than that, it appears to serve no useful purpose. W. D. Graham 22:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant mentioned above. Infoboxes shouldn't sort into categories, hidden or otherwise. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bushranger. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:59, 2 May 2012 (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:Law enforcement agencies by geographic area

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Don't see much point for this category; there is already Category:Law enforcement agencies by country which seems sufficient. KarlB (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:SMALLCAT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no reason why we need subdivisions other than the "by country" one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2012 (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:Children's charities based in the Republic of Ireland

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 & delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT; Category:Children's charities and Category:Charities based in the Republic of Ireland are sufficient here. KarlB (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and upmergeunless lots more articles are added RafikiSykes (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge there is no reason to have a one-article category. If someone does find another article to put here, recount my vote as keep.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2012 (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.

Comedians

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 (talk) 11:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Male comedians to Category:Comedians

Propose merging Category:British male comedians to Category:British comedians

Propose merging Category:Australian male comedians to Category:Australian comedians

Propose merging Category:Scottish male comedians to Category:Scottish comedians

Propose merging Category:English male comedians to Category:English comedians

Propose merging Category:Irish male comedians to Category:Irish comedians

Nominator's rationale: It seems the standard in this category tree is to differentiate women, but there doesn't seem to be a need to differentiate men. --KarlB (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are also australian irish british etc male comedians categories. Given the rationale stated above surely they should also be dealt with in this discussion?RafikiSykes (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment yes thanks, added above. --KarlB (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment Tagged and listed "Irish". – Fayenatic L (talk)

Comment: previous discussion was at CFD 2011 January 6, where the outcome was "keep for now". The related category:Male actors was merged after surprisingly little discussion at CFD 2012 January 2. The related Category:Women comedians, which has not been nominated here, was discussed at CFD 2009 June 22, with a "keep", and CFD 2011 July 11 with "no consensus". – Fayenatic L (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Whether we need to have Category:Women comedians is probably a debateable issue, but I don't think the same arguments can be mustered in favour of male comedians. If the women are carved off we don't need a corresponding carve-off for the men—they can just reside in the general parent category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. I would also like to see Women comedians merged as well. I really don't see how it's pertinent to being a comedian what genentalia you possess. Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I went to the trouble of pasting links to previous CFD discussions above, so that you could easily find out why gender was accepted as pertinent before. As it happens, genitalia were not important. – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That there are fewer woman who are comedians is not sufficient to establish the need for a separate category. It seems to me that consensus is trending towards having one category and treating men and women exactly the same. We don't have a 'nurses who are male' category, so I don't see why we should have one for women (or men for that matter) as comedians.Benkenobi18 (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there is no reason to differentiate male and female comedians, any more than there is a reason to differentiate male and female actors. However since we are doing it, it would be the extreme of sexism to assume that the true comedians are the males and the females are a lesser subdivision, which is what this proposal suggests. I will support the upmerge of all comedians into a non-gender specific category, but until that is on the table, I will support having seperate male and female categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment per WP:Cat gender a female category need not be balanced by a male one, especially in areas (for example, comedy) where there is a strong majority of men. For example, Category:Female heads of government. It's probably a good point about male nurses, per Men_in_nursing we should have a category for them (men only comprise 5% of those in nursing). We have for example, Category:Male feminists for a traditionally female-dominated field. Also this nom is for the 'men' categories; if you want to debate whether we should have Category:Women comedians please nominate that separately, I explicitly didn't nominate the women here.--KarlB (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I oppose dividing this by gender at all, but until other people accept that there is no reason to divide by gender, I will support all gender divisions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep usually very relevant to their acts/material.RafikiSykes (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. There are very few occupations where being male is a point of surprising differentiation, and this isn't one of them.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Wikipedia:Cat_gender is unpersuasive to me, I disagree. Unless one gender is an extraordinary exception to the norm, having both genders equally distinguished is more aesthetically pleasing. Comedians, unlike actors, are a special role/occupation/performance-act, and are almost always distinctive personality single person acts. Searching for a particular one is a challenge, and division by gender is helpful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:05, 24 May 2012 (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:Drawers

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 Category:Slovenian drawers and Category:Carniolan drawers into Category:Draughtsmen.
Delete Category:Drawers and Category:Drawers by nationality.
Category:Drawers by ethnicity has already been speedied as an empty category. Jafeluv (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Drawers to Category:Draughtsmen

Propose merging Category:Drawers by nationality ~~to Category:Draughtsmen by nationality~~

Propose ~~renaming~~ merging Category:Slovenian drawers ~~to Category:Slovenian draughtsmen~~

Propose ~~renaming~~ merging Category:Carniolan drawers ~~to Category:Carniolan draughtsmen~~

Propose deleting Category:Drawers by ethnicity

Nominator's rationale: The lead article is drawing; I think the only article for artists noted for this is at drafter, which starts A drafter, or draughtsman, prepares technical drawings.... Nevertheless, the most-populated category so far for these artists is Category:Draughtsmen. The "by ethnicity" sub-cat is for deletion as its only member is up for merging (CFD April 30) into the related nationality. – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and rename per nom, except also merge Category:Drawers by nationality to Category:Draughtsmen. There are few of them and not subcatted by anything else, so the 'by nationality' layer is not needed. Oculi (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Accepted. – Fayenatic L (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename this is not about furniture or pants. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge and Rename. Upmerge all the Drawers by nationality categories to 'Draughtsmen'. Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all these articles (a grand total of 2) into Category:Draughtsmen. We do not need to subdivide every profession by nationaity. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to upmerging; the member pages are already otherwise categorised by nationality. If the closer upmerges these one-page cats, I'll come back with a separate nomination of Category:Welsh draughtsmen either to be upmerged into Category:Draughtsmen or merged with English into British. – Fayenatic London (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all to a new Category:Draughtsmen. I agree that there's not enough to justify breaking it down by ethnicity or nationality at this stage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Really the whole scheme, including Category:Draughtsmen, should be deleted as non-defining. Drawing was for centuries the basis of the training of all artists and architects, and taught to many others, including surveyors, designers and naval officers for example. All these categories contain a handful of minor figures who are best known for other things. None of the relatively few people who are really known for their drawings are in any of them. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You make a good point. However, Joseph Farey's biography does identify him as "a talented engineering draughtsman", Franz Caucig is noted for his 2,000+ drawings, and as you refer to others who are known for drawing, I suggest that it is worth keeping. It would be appropriate to remove some others who are more noted for other arts especially if these are closely related, e.g. engravers or architects. – Fayenatic London (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Farey I grant you, but 2,000 is a high but not exceptional number of drawings for an old master artist to leave. If you were to do a Category:Artists known for their drawings it would have a few hundred people, beginning with Michelangelo, Leonardo, Raphael and Rembrandt and carrying on from there. I'm not sure it is defining for Caucig. Johnbod (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - As he created only 30 oil paintings and over 2,000 drawings, it is defining. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge/Rename to Category:Draughtsmen and Purge to only those notable primarily/especially as such. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:37, 11 May 2012 (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:Yes (band) Yessongs album covers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge to Category:Yes (band) album covers. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: There is no precedent for creating a category just for the liner notes and album artwork for a single album, nor is it necessary. In fact, most of these are nominated for XfD (by me) because they lack a fair use rationale: it is not necessary to show every piece of the album artwork, nor are they all discussed critically with third-party sources in the article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Other covers deleted per XfD guidelines, leaving only the actual front cover. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge contents to Category:Yes (band) album covers if the files survive deletion. It looks like overcategorization by me, and is part of the recent overcategorization of the Yessongs album. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge contents to Category:Yes (band) album covers per rationale above. Oculi (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Yes (band) album covers per Good Ol’factory, and WP:TROUT the nominator for proposing deletion rather than merger. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 1 May 2012 (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:Sibling marriage or relationship

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 & salt. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is not a category for the concept but is defined as "People in a sibling marriage or relationship". Categories for marriage status have been discussed many times in the past, and nearly every time there has been a consensus that we will not categorize by marriage status or by identity of marriage or sexual partner(s). This is another example of the same sort of thing. See a related discussion going on here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, It is a very unusual often stigmatised relationship, hence would need either a page on it or a category. Although first-cousin marriages can also be unusual i dont think it carries the same stigma thus is not as notable. Therefore i believe this category is certainly notable enough. Pass a Method talk 06:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It may carry a stigma today, but in almost all cases it did not in the societies those currently in the category lived in. It was not a "stigma" for Emperor Bidatsu, Elpinice, Cleopatra VII, and so forth. Marrying a sibling was customary in ancient Egpyt and in other societies. So why are we categorizing by it? Why is this to be treated differently than Category:Polygamists, which has been deleted several times? Polygamy is also often stigmatized but has been common in some societies, so "current stigma" seems like a poor standard. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are several countries where polygamy is legal today and not at all stigmatized. Thus we may also be dealing with rules imposed from a western perspective. Anyway, after this do we get Category:Men who married their deceased wife's sister?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hence my statement that polygamy is "often" stigmatized. It's not a universal stigma. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a type of relationship that wasn't stigmatized, but was in fact quite normal and customary, in the cultures that were actually lived in by the people who've actually been filed in it so far. At any rate, we don't typically categorize people by sociocultural characteristics of their sexual or romantic relationships, as it's not a defining characteristic of the people involved. If we had separate articles about the marriages themselves, distinct from our articles about the individual people, then such a category might be warranted — but as it stands, we don't (and most likely never will.) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. --KarlB (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt. Category will never be filled, and will always be incomplete. Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Bearcat. No use salting I think; there are too many possible names for this category. LeSnail (talk) 02:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your point about salting is a good one. This is not exactly the name I would have expected for this category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is just asking for libelous placement of living people that will lead to suits. If it was just "sibling marriage" it would be ok, but the "relationship" opens it up to all sorts of under-sourced libelous attacks.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2012 (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.