Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 23 February 25 >

February 24[edit]

Category:Homosexuality and religion[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: merge all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: When you look at the contents of these categories, compared to the contents of their parent, it is hard to determine which articles should go in which. Many of the current discussions, activism, activists, activist groups, legal issues, and sub-categories apply to the LGBT umbrella more broadly as well as to the homosexual subset. While it is certainly true that some religions have specific issues with homosexual behavior and treat it differently than transgender or bisexuality or other forms under the broader umbrella, this can be appropriately covered in articles devoted to the subject, which already exist for the most part. OTOH, as a category, having a "homosexual" split is not necessary, because the bulk of articles would be relevant to both the parent and the child category - and as such the cats would duplicate one another. Since the bulk of articles would be valid both in the "Homosexual" child category and the parent "LGBT issues" category, we should just merge them.
Note: If you want to argue that the homosexual subcat should be diffusing (e.g. some things should *only* be in that category), then my response would be, that's a bad idea - because then the only thing in the parent would be articles which somehow, in some way, mention something beyond "homosexual" - and the bulk of these articles *do* exactly that. Take for example LGBT topics and Hinduism - where should that go? or LGBT-affirming religious groups or Conservative_Judaism_and_sexual_orientation? By splitting the articles across homosexual and LGBT, it ends up being confusing for the reader, because in some cases the info you're looking for is in the parent, and in some cases it's in the child. On the other hand, if you place most articles in both, there's no point in having two categories! Thus, merger is the simplest, cleanest solution.
For a specific example, look at the tree, how it goes LGBT x -> Homosexual y -> LGBT x -> Homosexual z. For example,Integrity_USA is "a U.S. not-for-profit organization working in the Episcopal Church in the United States of America (TEC) for the full inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT)"; but it's in Category:Homosexuality and Anglicanism, which is in Category:Homosexuality_and_Christianity, which is in Category:LGBT topics and Christianity. So at the bottom of the "homosexual" tree, you have a full blossoming of LGBT articles....
Note: previous discussion here ended in no consensus.
Also note: Category:Homosexuality is a redirect to Category:LGBT.
Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with the nominator here; it is not helpful or useful to have "homosexuality and religion" subcategories in place as a separate set from "LGBT issues and religion". Very few if any of the articles in question are actually exclusive to "homosexuality", without also impacting on bisexuality — and I remain entirely unaware of any religion whose position on bisexuality is particularly separable from its position on homosexuality (the official position of most churches, obviously, being little more than "don't indulge your homosexual side" — and thus not actually distinct in any meaningful way from their positions on "pure" homosexuality.) Which means that the distinction between the two categories is, in most cases, an arbitrary one based entirely on which wording an individual editor prefers to use (and thus in turn running the risk of an edit war if another editor disagrees.) Gender identity is a distinct issue from sexual orientation, so Category:Transgender topics and religion is warranted for topics which are uniquely transgender in import — but when it comes to the sexual orientation topics, there's no easy way to differentiate them as being uniquely L/G in relevance and not also B. And accordingly, the common LGBT level of categorization is sufficient when it comes to those issues; the categories do not need separate subcats for uniquely "homosexual" issues. Upmerge per nom. Bearcat (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. However, currently category (and article) titles have a mixture of "LGBT topics and Fooism" and "Homosexuality and Fooism" and I'm not convinced that the "LGBT topics" form is the better one as it's ugly (like most/all "topics" categories), it's inconsistent with other categories and (most importantly) it's massively inconsistent with the real world (e.g. "Anglican homosexuality" gets about 500 times as many Google hits as "Anglican LGBT"). In the context of religion, "homosexuality" doesn't mean "pure homosexuality"; it includes LG&B (and T is not such a big issue - do we have many articles specifically about transgenderism and religion?). I would prefer a bit of text on a category page explaining the scope of the category than a overcorrect name. DexDor (talk) 06:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge and use "LGBT" rather than "homosexuality" - since bisexuality is obviously covered by the "homosexual acts" jargon so common in these topics. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, I agree with the nomination rationale and it seems reasonable in order to eliminate duplication. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:31, 7 March 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:Illegal immigrants[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: merge all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Illegal" is a problematic term for many reasons, first of all it is pejorative, and used to critique people who have broken some immigration law. "Undocumented" is a better term, but it still has a problematique of "currency" - i.e. by tagging someone "Undocumented", you are indirectly making an assertion that they are currently undocumented. If you say, no, this category is for people who are or WERE undocumented at some point, then the potential scope of this category becomes huge; tens of thousands of refugees, many people fleeing WWII, oodles of people who crossed borders at various points in history may all have been violating one or more immigration laws at one or more points in their lives, but this is not an essential defining feature. If someone overstayed their visa by one day back in 1963, they are just as qualified to join this category as someone who overstayed their visa by a week last year. We have many much better categories for these people, including Category:Stateless people for a few rare cases, Category:Refugees for others, and we could also create something like Category:People convicted of immigration violations or something similar to capture cases where a legal body ruled on and acted on someone's immigration status, as opposed to someone saying "Well, when I was young my parents didn't really have papers". Immigration status and legality/non-legality of an immigrant in any particular country is a complex and nuanced issue, and there are also varying degrees of illegality (e.g. from overstaying one's visa to sneaking across the border to outright immigration fraud) and this category, poorly populated as it is now and likely to remain given that we can't really know the visa expiration dates of the tens or hundreds of thousands of immigrants for which we have articles on, this just not a good category to have. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See [1] for more on Jewish illegal immigrants to the US before and during WWII, and Aliyah_Bet for illegal immigration of Jews to the British Mandate for Palestine, as just two examples of the varied forms "illegal" immigration has taken, but the people who underwent such experiences are not categorized as "illegals" today. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would favor a rename to undocumented over all, though a merge wouldn't be the worst thing that could happen. I agree categories should only be individually applied when sourced and neutral, but that's always true of every category and instances of bad inclusion shouldn't be used against the category itself if some group of articles clearly fit. I would say that if it's this underpopulated now, I don't think anything we do will ever touch on the "potential scope of this category", especially as this nomination is a minor increase to the size of Immigrants which clearly has more potential scope than the proposed merge candidate ever would. Either way, this category helped me learn that Elvis's manager was an illegal immigrant, a thing I probably wouldn't have learned if I was navigating a non-subdivided Immigrants category. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This appears to be an agenda driven category with no reliable source supporting the broad category. aprock (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The fact that someone is an illegal is important. IN UK, there are several varieties - clandestine immigrants, overstayers, failed asylum seekers, etc. If they have come to the attention of the authorities, they will have an identity card (which is a document). "Undocumented" is (I think) essentially an American category for clandestine immigrants across the Mexican border. Each country has its own laws on this, so that it is going to be difficult to devise a worldwide scheme for this. Jewish immigrants to Mandate Palestine were certainly a class of illegals, until the formation of Israel or permission to settle. I am not really qualified to talk about the American and Mexican categories, but the paretn should certainly be kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The categories are well-defined, and often a defining characteristic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The legality or illegality of many immigrations is complex. We have moved away from categorizing people by naturalization status, we should also move away from categorizing them by immigration status. The fact that they migrated between countries is enough to categorize by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 28 February 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:LGBT billionaires[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 (all the articles are in a "NATIONALITY billionaires" category, so no need to merge). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I wasn't able to find much evidence that this is a serious topic of study. Much more important (and discussed) in media is not whether the billionaire is themselves gay, but rather, do they or do they not support LGBT rights with their billions. This category also leaves out many monarchs and the many Roman emperors who may have had LGBT tendencies of one sort or another, but this group as a whole is a rather arbitrary intersection. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Another option would be to listify, and delete all of the Billionaires categories, as they essentially form an arbitrary cut-off - especially since the valuation is determined in current currency as opposed to real valuations, and done with euros, sterling, dollars, etc. So some poor schmuck who only made 999,999,999 euros in the old country would be left off this list - too bad! Lists seem like a much better way to capture this information in any case, since it varies so much across time and space.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for now - Normally I'd be against arbitrary cut-offs. The concept of "Billionaire" is by definition arbitrary, but I think the biggest difference in this case is that it's frequently and specifically documented in sources, and not an invention of our own. We're organizing by what's found and noted as important by sources. If we did have "super-wealthy" instead of "billionaire" you can see the issues we'd have about whom to include or exclude. According to this there's people in the $700 million range and according to this there's openly gay heirs to billions. But you haven't suggested a rename for this useful intersection. And if you want to get rid of all Category:Billionaires maybe you should do it as a clear and separate nomination, and see if the economist and business groups have an opinion, as it has over 70 sub-cats covering something like a thousand articles. I think that would make an arguably lousy list. Most of the super-rich are secretive, so we're only helping navigate between the subjects we know about. Closer to your suggestion, Black billionaires is currently a list, but it looks much harder to maintain for a similar amount of navigational use. I'd be more inclined to delete this one if there was already a workable list, rather then an assumption someone might take it on some day.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it's worth a list, then "Listify" is an option, which I'd be fine with (in which case, the case remains until the list is built)- I just don't think this is workable or defining as an intersection category. The idea to kill all the billionaires category is not covered by this nom, it's more of a signal to others to see what they think, and if people feel strongly, we can nominate that whole tree later. Many many lists already exist covering these people in any case. Your list from queerty illustrates the overall problem here - Sir Elton John is fabulously successful, but he didn't hit a billion thus he doesn't show up here. It's arbitrary.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Black billionaires is extremely problematic, and has been nominated 4-5 times for deletion. We never do racial categories, so I'm surprised a race-based list has survived, suggesting there's some connection between Oprah and some dude from Nigeria just because they shared a similar gene pool many generations past... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Billionaires is arbitrary, but I would say it's arbitrary in a way not defined by us, and broadly noted by sources. In other words it's like Category:Centenarians, not Category:Sculptors under the age of 26 less than five feet tall or Category:People we call oldies. But a list/sortable table of "Wealthiest LGBT" would be just as useful to someone for navigating articles, but only if it was built. If not, I think the category is more actually useful than no category.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that would be fine as well - like top 10 wealthiest LGBT people? There are outside sources that cover this, and I think that would make a reasonable list.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hee, I think there's some possibly unintended irony in the arbitrariness of a "Top 10" list (what about the eleventh person?) but yes, an editor-supported list of the wealthiest would fill much of the same purpose.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
categories should not have subjective or arbitrary cut-offs but lists suffer no such restriction. Thus we can have lists of the 10 biggest cities, 10 richest people, 10 tallest buildings, etc. the difference is, you don't have little tags on some articles but not on others. In lists the cut-off is intended to limit the length of the list, vs listing everyone in the wiki sorted by wealth.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, you'd actually argue for a hard arbitrary cut-off of ten? That's ridiculous. That's even sillier than doing it by arbitrary income bracket. Category:Lists_of_people_by_wealth is not filled with David Letterman-style top ten lists, it's a mix of income brackets and reported estimates. It also shows that "billionaires" is actually a pretty common cut off right now. Most of the lists are at least partially beholden to the Forbes list, which measures billionaires, 1342 of them.__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wouldn't argue for 10, I'm just saying, editors can and have decided on arbitrary cut-offs for lists like this, and sometimes it's ten. For example, List_of_highest-grossing_films has cut-offs of 50, 25, and 10 as agreed upon. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this clearly fails as WP:OC#ARBITRARY. I might suggest a listify, but to what? Since many of these individuals are here due to investments, some can move into or out of the category based on the performance of the stock markets. That is not something categories are designed to deal with. If we listify, this almost means a list by year or some other published list. Not sure that qualifies as a valid list. So just delete since everyone is already in one or more other subcategories. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Did anyone look at Category:Billionaires? It states inclusion criteria is a billion United States dollars, euros, British pounds or units of a comparably valued currency which is arbitrary and subjective. The three currencies listed do not have the same value and what other currencies can be use? Bitcoin? Brazilian real? So something there needs to be done, either delete or rewrite the inclusion criteria. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's one of the reasons I'm considering putting that whole tree up for discussion, but not yet. People sometimes talk about US dollar billionaire, USD seems to be the main benchmark.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:22, 25 February 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:Woman medical examiners[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 (single article moved to Category:Medical examiners). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails last rung rule. There are no other categories into which the head can be diffused. Plus, I haven't been able to find much evidence that women+medical examiners is a topic of serious study. Yet another gendered category that we don't need. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Anotehr unnecessary gender-based occupational category: the performance of women will differ little from that of men here. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Medical examiners. I am surprised there is no nationality split, but with the size of the category, not really. I do think there are probably more notable medical examiners worth having articles, but don't feel up to creating such articles at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 28 February 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 in forestry[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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Suggest purging this of all biographical articles, which are a hodge-podge of various women involved in diverse areas of forestry, ensuring first that they are all categorized correctly under Category:Forestry occupations, then keeping this to a topic category covering articles that look at the intersection of women's issues and forestry. However, as an occupation category, this is far too diverse as a gendered container, covering foresters, forestry researchers, loggers, papermakers, tree-tapping, etc, so it would be better to create, if needed and backed by sources, specific gendered sub-categories of various forestry jobs, as needed (however, leaving this category empty of biographies and sub-categories). Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Current category name is consistent with other subcategories within Category:Women by occupation. As the present category includes only 19 articles, subdividing it further would result in tiny subcategories. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing to further subdivide it - I'm proposing to change the scope of this category to be a topical category that contains no biographies whatsoever, and removing it from Category:Women by occupation. Then, if needed, additional gendered subcats of various forest-related jobs could be created if sourcing could be found to support same. This is essentially an intermediary container category, and I'm more and more convinced these should not be gendered, it just complicates the tree too much and brings together unlike job types in a way that outside sources don't. For example, the current contents bring together a Sri Lankan eco-social entrepreneur, American plant pathologist, American conservationist, Dutch phytopathologist, American tropical forester, an ethnobotanist, a forest products researcher, the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, an expert in canopy ecology, and a Kenyan environmental and political activist. The only thing these women have in common is they all work amongst trees, but their fields are quite diverse and specialized. None of their male counterparts are grouped together in this way, and I don't see any reason to group the women together for the same reason - they should be simply placed into the proper more targeted subcategories of Category:Forestry occupations --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"None of their male counterparts are grouped together this way...", this line of argument doesn't make sense, as the non-"Women by occupation" cats aren't therefore "men" cats, they should be "men and women" cats. They can't be compared side-by-side like that. As for the inclusion I don't see them as being that disparate either. Lots of scientists, some activists, a couple civil servants, but that sounds like the world of "Forestry" to me. (If this was "Women in mining" I'd expect geologists, engineers, activists and some business people without any surprise.) I was on the fence on this, but after hearing that it's intended mostly to remove all of the biographies (leaving what, a couple of articles?) I'm going to have to say I oppose renaming this category.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, if we haven't blended the gender-neutral cats together, there's no value in blending the gender-specific cats together. We already have appropriate sub-cats for all of these occupations, but blending them together + adding a gender tint to it suggests that "Women in a broad set of jobs somehow related to the forest" is itself an encyclopedic topic and that outside sources group together, but no such article exists and you'd likely have trouble writing a good version of same that would link phytopathologists and the issues they went through with Chiefs of the forest service and the issues they went through to forest-saving-activists and the issues they went through.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it. I would expect groups like "Women in technology" to occasionally blend notable engineers with notable material scientists with notable technology startup CEOs. I would then expect the articles to show up in the "engineers" and "material scientists" and "technology CEO" cats (as subcats of Technology). The only reason the subcats aren't "blended" together is that there are not enough articles to subdivide, as DASonnenfeld pointed out. If there were a critical mass of a specific occupation in women who have a connection to forestry, then the category would support subdividing too, and I think it would look like Category:Women in technology with its subcats for computer science, etc. But Forestry is already pretty specific a category here, even with occupation varieties. It's a recognized focus of human activity, women are notable by their frequency or experience, thus the intersection is useful for navigation. Something like this shows that there's interest, and that interest covers women scientists, activists, workers with a connection to the subject.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the problem is, when you create these gendered mid-range cats, they end up being non-container cats even though the parents are container cats, with good reason - so you violate that logic. Secondly Forestry is different from plant pathology and quite different from social entrepreneurship, and if we expanded this cat with all women who work in some forest somewhere it will be even worse - the article you point to was about forestry. Thirdly, if you keep it but only as a container, then you end up excluding women for which gendered subcats aren't merited - for example, I'm not convinced that women forest conservation activists is a worthwhile gender split since some of the most famous and well known forest activists have been women and there doesn't seem to have been a serious societal blockage towards their participation in such activities given their successes to date - so the result is a women-in-forest-jobs cat that misses some important women. Finally, Women in technology is a good example of the problems these create - why not create a women-cat alongside Category:Technology in society or Category:People in information technology or Category:People associated with technology - our cat structures are so complex that properly parenting and melding non-diffusing mid-range pseudo-containers like these in a way that is easy to find but non-ghettoizating is extremely complex and the chance for ghettoization becomes even stronger as you end up with these complicated sub-trees in parallel to the main cats, which is why I think the women-cats should be mostly at the very top or towards the very bottom - in the middle causes a muddle. Finally it's useful is usually not a good reason to keep, the key question is, is it maintainable, is it more likely to cause ghettoization or to blend unlike jobs together in ways we wouldn't do for non-gendered categories, if yes it means you're treating women as a special type of human which is itself a violation of NPOV and problematic for any number of reasons.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL is a perfectly legitimate reason to keep a category. There are some pages within Wikipedia which are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument. And I have to say that you are probably overthinking the desperate and paralyzing complexity of a category that Wikipedia has only filled with 19 articles. Dumping a present day useful category (because of some concern that either the Wikipedians of 2022 won't be able to maintain it or that maybe tomorrow it will exponentially grow by hundreds of entries) sounds like a bad idea on the face of it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 04:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
EQ, you should know better... The bar for a gendered category containing people is much higher than ITSUSEFUL. If usefulness sufficed, then we could keep any arbitrary gendered category by simple assertion of utility. Gee, I'd love to know how many 19th century Polish cooks were women of Prussian descent, can we create a Category:19th-century Polish women cooks of Prussian descent? For a gendered category to be kept, you must show that gender has a specific relation to the topic - so while it's possible that gender has a specific and notable relation to the occupation of Category:Forester and Category:Logger, it's not as obvious to me that gender has a specific and notable relation to "forestry occupations", broadly defined, nor that people discuss women in the broad sweep of what we have contained and defined as forest-related occupations, with the broad range already on display and much more potentially to come (for example, women who gather and sell forest products would also be considered part of this category, as would women who deal in forest real estate and investment, etc etc). It's a case-by-case thing, and this category ends up as a hodge-podge - a hodge-podge that works as a non-gendered container, but not as a gendered non-container - the result is in a way a sort of WP:OR. As such, it has to go. I think a fair case could be made for Category:Women foresters under Category:Foresters, but the others we'd have to look at more carefully.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 08:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All very nice if I'd suggested keeping it solely on useful grounds, but I didn't (although usefulness should not be dismissed here). It's a recognized focus of human activity, women are notable by their frequency or experience, thus the intersection is useful for navigation. And I pointed to places like this to show that people have studied and been interested in women's occupational experience (across occupations) in the field of forestry. There's dozens of other examples of interest and recognition of the roles of women involved in forestry, from the dry to the historical to the individual. Category:Women in forestry might make sense moved under Category:Foresters, but only because I think the definition of "Foresters" is exactly parallel with what's in Category:Women in forestry right now. Category:American foresters is the very same "hodge-podge" of scientists, executives, and other workers, so there goes the argument that an industry category needs identical job duties or titles to be of worth. But that's not a question of whether the category should stay, it's how to categorize it in the tree, a different discussion than this one. I think it's probably better where it is. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a different category. Category:Women foresters would exclude social entrepreneurs, women who make/sell/use forest products, women who do scientific research on tree diseases (that would be in Category:Forestry researchers, papermakers, tree-tappers, etc. {{cl|Women foresters would be a reasonable category and some of the contents could be merged to that, I just think this larger/broader gendered split makes ghettoization much more likely.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's why I think it's best where it is, beside the subcats for researchers, etc. There's a possible argument to split Category:Forestry occupations into Category:Forestry occupations (Basic descriptions of jobs) and Category:People in forestry (with all the present categories that name specific people and groups). __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The split of occupations/people should be done, clearly.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Anotehr unnecessary gender-based occupational category: the performance of women will differ little from that of men here. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and rescope per nom. I am also of the opinion that we need to get rid of all or almost all of these "women in x" categories. I do not think they are useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I would not be opposed to creation of Category:Women foresters, and selective population of same. However, the broader field-based categories I think are ineffective and cause more problems with potential ghettoization and violation of various pieces of WP:EGRS than they're worth.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/upmerge. Ensure the articles in this category are (where appropriate - e.g. the Hoedads article shouldn't be categorized under women) in an alternative forestry and/or women category (e.g. Women's Timber Corps is in Category:Women's organisations in the United Kingdom and Category:Forestry in the United Kingdom) then delete this category. DexDor (talk) 21:42, 11 March 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:Banksia redirects[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 after populating the project category. I will list this task at WP:CFDWM. If the participants do not do this within, say, a couple of months, the category will simply be deleted. – Fayenatic London 09:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As with other redirect categories, here we have a mainspace category which should really be a project-space category. Suggest that we tag all of these redirects as class=redirect and create appropriate project-space categorization for them. This one should be a no-brainer as there is a specific wikiproject devoted to this plant, which is rather remarkable (must be a special plant!) Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I created this category and have no objection to Obiwan's proposal. Hesperian 00:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've now created Category:Redirect-Class_Banksia_articles. @Hesperian:, please check back in a few days, the backlog shoudl be cleared and most redirect-class articles should have been moved. However, if there are still Category:Banksia redirects that weren't tagged as a redirect, I don't think the bot will fix them, so those will have to be tagged manually. Can you do this tagging? thanks! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this will require some work, many of these don't seem to be tagged. Can you see if anomiebot can do the tagging? Obiwankenobi 15:16, 25 February 2014‎
Happy for this to happen too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think for some of these there is, the project tag is on the talk page and the redirect itself has the category coded. So in those cases, the category will need to be deleted. Not sure how many are not tagged by the project, so a bot to check would be good. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber:, is it you who is doing this? At present there are only 5 in the new project category, compared to 476 in the mainspace category. – Fayenatic London 16:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Hesperian:, is it you? – Fayenatic London 16:09, 5 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.

South Slavic surname categories[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. – Fayenatic London 22:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This would match how we're actually using these categories - they're surnames by culture primarily, and in the first four cases, invoking the language may bring up doubts regarding a tangential discussion about what's a language - which is largely irrelevant here. In the last case, this is mainly for normalization and also to avoid excessive references to the language dispute, besides, the word "language" is redundant with "Serbo-Croatian" (it's implicit). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Most of Serbian, Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin... language names are of Turkish, Greek or some other language origin. The word language is very important to distinct those surnames from their original variant on some other language. Also, the existing form is consistent with other Slavic language surnames. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that doesn't reflect the actual usage of these categories. If what you said was accurate, we'd be categorizing Ivanović and Jovanović the same way we're categorizing Johnson - which we are not doing. These are not mere translations of one another, they're each a moniker specific to a culture indicated in the category name. Also, most other Slavic language surnames don't have this specific linguistic issue to haunt them. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No "we" don't. It is better to avoid fallacious "we" perspective. "We" don't attribute X origin to something of Y origin. X language surnames are not haunted because they have non-X origin. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's better to be actually aware of what editors are doing as opposed to whatever your wishful thinking is. The surname Jovanović is of Serbian origin. It is not of Biblical origin just because the stem is a Biblical name. I never said the surnames are haunted, please re-read that sentence above. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I have severe misgivings about "language": the main language in all of these is Serbo-Croat. Whether a person calls it Serbian or Croatian depends on whehter he writes it with cyrillic or Latin letters. No doubt some surnames will be based on placenames. Some among Muslims may of course be Turkish. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between the entire set of Serbian surnames and the entire set of Croatian surnames definitely does not depend solely on alphabet - if nothing else, simply because Latin is in very common use in Serbian as well as Croatian... but more to the point, there are indeed surnames that are a clear Croatian and/or Serbian origin because of their relation to the relevant culture. That the language(s) is (are) genetically the same doesn't in any way invalidate the simple notion that surnames can be finely categorized by this kind of origin, which is what the existing hundreds of categorizations are doing, it's just that they're using the linguistic terminology which brings in an unnecessary source of dispute. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, what? Who is proposing that we use nationality? I'm saying we should use the format used commonly in Category:Surnames by culture, which is what the bulk of this is. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing Zoupan is suggesting that Category:Serbian-language surnames sounds like it's separating surnames by language origin, while Category:Surnames of Serbian origin sounds like it's separating surnames by national origin. You're suggesting separation by cultural origin rather than national origin, but that may have been a source of confusion. Agyle (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we merge them all into one, that will be counterproductive, it will just make a lot of articles flamebait for nationalists. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I can see "language" being arguable, subjective, and non-verifiable in many cases, but dividing the names by culture seems prone to the same problems. If people don't agree on the definition of a language for the current categories, would they really agree on the definition of a culture? Joy [shallot]'s reply to Peterkingiron's vote suggests that they already do; I don't know enough to have an opinion on this. Agyle (talk) 13:22, 14 March 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:Philosophy redirects[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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Redirect-Class Philosophy articles, which is generated by the banner {{WPPHILOSOPHY{{subst:!}}class=redirect}}. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should not be deleted until the information is extracted. There are only 134 pages listed under Category:Redirect-Class Philosophy articles, while 345 pages are listed at the page in question. For example, Bakunin's maxim is a redirect listed on the page proposed for deletion, but it is not yet tagged so that it appears at Category:Redirect-Class Philosophy articles. -Hugetim (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • convert, then delete Tag all contents to the Philosophy project, and then delete. Would be nice if a bot could do this, but it may not be worth the effort.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - neither the Category:Redirect-Class Philosophy articles, nor this category should be deleted at all. The disambiguation category was deleted, and this doesn't serve any useful purpose, especially for those of us doing the work of organizing things! There are redirect categories for other subjects, and I feel that these kinds of proposals unduly target the philosophy department first because we don't have large numbers of people monitoring the situation. Not every redirect needs to be tagged with a project banner, only those which reasonably should be monitored for popularity (using the monthly popular pages update). So the redirect category should be kept, otherwise the alternative is to tag potentially thousands of redirects. I am pretty sure no one else is going to volunteer to do that, so all the work falls on me. This kind of proposal really ticks me off. Greg Bard (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, I'm confused greg. Are you saying, it's a good situation to have X number of redirects tagged in talk-space, and Y number of redirects tagged in mainspace? That is TWICE the work... I believe User:AnomieBOT#On_demand can tag all articles in a given set of categories as redirect class, and then going forward, you just tag the redirect to the project and it will show up in Category:Redirect-Class Philosophy articles (which isn't up for deletion, by the way) - or just run the bot again. Philosophy isn't being targeted, it's just one of the few remaining, after a short while there will likely be none left in mainspace, all/most having been moved to project space. There's simply no value in having dual categorization of this sort. I just don't see why you'd like to complicate things, by having (for all redirects, tag as Category:Philosophy redirects, and then (for some redirects, tag to the project) - that's just dual work - much better to just tag all of the redirects, and then use the importance field to filter out redirects you really care about.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well since **I'M** the one doing all the work, I can tell you that, yes, deleting this just makes more work for me. We don't need to tag every redirect with a project banner. There are TEN times as many redirects as actual targets on Wikipedia! We only need to tag the ones which we should be monitoring under popular pages. However, that is not to say that we shouldn't have a category for every redirect! Greg Bard (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still don't understand how this makes more work, esp given a bot could tag all of them in a few minutes. Why are you concerned about too many redirects being tagged? As I understand it, we're talking about adding 200 more redirects to that category. The redirects themselves can just be in a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia_redirects, as placed by an appropriate template; but the idea is for consistency, to avoid having topic-specific redirect cats in mainspace, and to use project-based cats for that instead. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there are about 15,000 articles monitored by the Philosophy project, that means that there are about 150,000 redirects. So with this proposal, we are left with two choices: tag all 150,000; or tag only the ones we want to monitor and have no good way to identify which ones those are since there's no place where there is a collection from which to make the determination. Say listen, why have Philosophy stubs? Isn't that the same issue?! In any case, I really wish people would start these proposals in OTHER subject areas first (like Category:Geography redirects) rather than picking off an easy target. I just find it very distasteful. Greg Bard (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why would there be so many redirects? That's rather crazy. But nonetheless, if we accept this argument, this still means that the category in question, Category:Philosophy redirects, should contain 150,000 articles - and they all have to be tagged by hand - as opposed to the bot tagging which would constrain this all to project space. How is keeping this in article space any better? If you use the "importance" field, the bot can classify and split all of the non-important redirects, so then you can automagically just pull in the ones you deem important, so "importance" gives you that filter you're looking for. Again, philosophy is not the first on the target list, I've seen a few of these go by already, so please don't feel like you're being unfairly targeted.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's quite unlikely that the bot would tag 150,000, since the bot only tags redirects that are either in a category or already part of the wikiproject. So, for the vast majority of redirects, if they aren't in a philosophy category nor tagged by the philosophy project, they will never show up on your radar.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Holy moly you're missing the point twice over. It is well known that there are always several redirects for every page with actual content. I don't put every redirect I find into the category, only some of them. So that's an initial filter I use to look for the useful ones (that is being taken away now). THAT'S how they GET on my radar. And BTW, what exactly is your response to my point about stub categories? How about list categories? What exactly makes them okay, but this not okay?! Greg Bard (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stub categories are presumably useful to readers/editors who want to expand stubs, whereas redirects are not that useful to the same group, and list groupings are obviously useful to readers. It sounds like you're using Category:Philosophy redirects as a sort of proto-personal-working-category in advance of doing further work with a redirect? If so, allow me to suggest that you consider a sandbox or some other way of capturing these; as a category, nothing would prevent other users from adding hundreds of articles to that category, in which case your worklist gets messed up...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just because I happen to be the only one using this category at the moment for these purposes, doesn't make it "personal" in any way. I certainly do wish there were others using it too, nothing is stopping them, but there aren't. The sandbox suggestion was put forward with good intentions, but ultimately unhelpful. I see no difference between this and the stubs, or the lists AT ALL. It's just a matter of what a very small number of people believe editors should be doing, and what , in reality, that small number of people should be enabling editors to do. It's pretty clear how this proposal is going to go, so screw me again, as usual. Greg Bard (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, I must admit I'm quite puzzled here. The reason this cat is up for deletion is that it duplicates an existing category and most people think it makes more sense for such redirects to be tracked in project-space, and this is much more consistent with how other redirects are categorized. I don't know why you're taking this so personally. If you would take time to explain how you are using these categories, perhaps we could find a different solution, but instead you critique us for "picking" on your project. I made the same proposal above for another wikiproject and the creator there happily accepted. It seems that you want two categories - one for redirects that you aren't sure you want to take seriously, and another for redirects you do want to take seriously. There are ways to use the banner/etc to make this work automatically, and even to put them in two different categories - you could have for example Category:Redirect-Class Philosophy articles and Category:Redirect-Class Philosophy articles (working) for example, and stick redirects in the second category through application of a custom class. It's really not that hard to set up, but people won't be willing to help you if you get so angry.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Take it easy. I'm not over here flailing my arms in my seat or anything like that. I'll certainly get over it, like I have to get over every other proposal made by people with no special knowledge or stake in the Philosophy project. Obviously I'm open minded to moving the category to a new name (since that has no practical effect on anything). However, that isn't what the proposal is. The proposal is to delete it. Any help is appreciated, but redirects are a very low priority in general, so believe me, I'm not taking anything personal. Be well, Greg Bard (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's close, but not quite that - because we're categorizing talk pages vs the redirects themselves, so you can't move the category...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, as a fellow philosopher (but wiki-noob), I'd like to better understand your concern here. Do you have a broader proposal to make: that each Wikiproject/topic should have a redirect category like the one under discussion in addition to the default redirect category? Your impatient tone suggests you are annoyed to have to defend this page, but if your reason for wanting it is not explained elsewhere (in an essay or what have you), then it makes sense that you would need to give an explanation for this page which seems redundant at first glance. If you have a specific vision for: what this page should include, what the default category should include, and which redirects should not be tagged at all, would you be willing to take a step back and systematically explain what that is? -Hugetim (talk) 00:47, 26 February 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:Ayurveda family in Kerala[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) 01:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: these two categories contain only one article Poomulli, which is already in Category:Indian noble families. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:48, 24 February 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:Plant deaths by year[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:Individual tree deaths by decade and Category:2010s individual tree deaths. There is enough demand here to keep something. So far all the members are trees, and there is a parent for Category:Individual trees but not for Category:Individual plants. The grandparent Category:Individual organisms has categories for animals and trees, and individual creosote bush & fungus which show no hurry to die and justify a plant category; hence the rename to "trees". The word "individual" is desirable to match the (new) parent and to distinguish from species extinctions. – Fayenatic London 16:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: These two categories contain only one article between them. There is no Category:Plant deaths. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Collapse into Cateogry:Plant deaths and a decadal category tree to complement Category:Animal deaths; (or century tree), we have articles on individual plants, and plants do die/are "born" so a complementary tree for flora should exist parallel to that for fauna, though probably not needing per-year specificity. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It needs a better name. I interpret 'Plant death' as the death of a species. The one article is about one specific tree (an Historic tree?); despite that tree having died the species is in no danger. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – we have Category:Individual trees which is extensive, so it seems likely that some of these will have died and could populate Category:Tree deaths or Category:Individual tree deaths. 'By year' is perhaps overkill. (I can't locate any articles about individual plants other than trees.) Oculi (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, but create Category:Individual plant deaths and collapse into by-decade. We don't have so many trees, and they don't seem to die that often (thank heavens). We also don't need to separate trees from plants, even though I assume most of the individual plants we have articles on are trees, but there are likely exceptions - see some potential ideas here List_of_largest_plants or examples like King_Clone. We should probably merge the animal deaths into by-decade cats as well.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Keep/rename seems like a clearer classification of Obi-Wan Kenobi's opinion. I'm mentioning it so a reviewer doesn't just stop after the word "delete", though the proposal does involve restructuring the categories. Agyle (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This feels all wrong. We have dissestablishment categories for institutions and death categories for people. Perhaps were should include the one article in 2014 deaths and Plant deaths (or tree deaths). I expect that there will be a modest number to populate that with. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that this has potential to expand. deaths are generally categorized by year. With the animal deaths, we have years with 9 articles, without racehorses, so it works. I think what we need to do there is upmerge the race horse cats. Oddly enough many of the direct articles are on horses that were not racehorses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure that there are enough notable dead plants to make breaking it down by year worthwhile, but a general category for dead plants might be appropriate. I added several more dead trees to the Category:Plant deaths by year (without actually subcategorizing by year), to give some examples of what else might go in the category. For a few of these, the circumstances of death are pretty notable in their own right. Prometheus (tree) was possibly the oldest living organism, and was (the story goes) cut down when attempts to get a core sample for aging were unsuccessful. Arbre du Ténéré grew in the Sahara, was the only tree for 250 miles in any direction, and was hit by a drunk driver. The death of The Senator (tree) received a fair amount of media attention; it was burned when someone smoking meth set a fire for light and the fire got out of control. Plantdrew (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Keep - I think if we delve into it there'll be a few more plants. I think I'd rather play with the categories now and see how we can populate it, and revisit this in six months, than lump all now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've gone through Category:Individual trees and added all the articles where a year of death is provided (although a tree blown down in a windstorm may not actually die for months, I think it's pretty fair to have the year it fell as the year of death). I'm thinking the category should be renamed, although I'm not quite sure what the name should be. Category:Plant deaths (but the articles aren't really about the deaths of the plants)? Category:Dead plants? There are several more articles on deceased individual trees where a precise year of death is not provided. Plantdrew (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does putting an article like Lone Pine (tree) in a category like Category:Plant deaths by year (which should be a container category) do anything other than cause watchlist noise on articles ? DexDor (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it definitely should be a container category. Since there are relatively few articles to which the category would apply (as a parent cat/container), I thought it would be helpful (for the purposes of discussing the category) to have the articles grouped. I didn't want to bother with individual year categories yet if it's all going to end up deleted. Pending the outcome of the discussion here, they can be recategorized by actual year, decategorized or put in a broader plant deaths category. Plantdrew (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Plantdrew, with your suggested rename, do you mean make a single category like "Plant deaths" with no yearly subcategories, or keep the existing "Plant deaths by year" structure and additionally create a "Plant deaths" or "Dead plants" category that contains trees that died in unknown years? Just trying to help the person who will have to make sense of these votes. :-) Agyle (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh heck. I don't know what I want. I'm concerned that by year categorization leads to mostly categories with 1 entry. By decade (as proposed elsewhere in this thread), is less intuitive, and will still have a bunch of 1 entry categories (with well populated categories for the 2000s and 2010s; many of the dead plants with articles have died since Wikipedia was around). "Plant deaths" seems to me like it would be a category for articles largely about the death of a plant; while the death of the plant has motivated creation of articles about recently dead plants, the death itself is not the focus of the articles (Cursing the fig tree might be one of the few articles about the death of a plant). I guess I can accept the small by year categories and am changing my vote to keep. I'd tentatively suggest an additional "deceased individual trees" category that contains death by year subcategories as well as trees known to be dead that died in unknown years. Plantdrew (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The main purpose of categorization is to group articles by topic - this helps readers to navigate to information about a topic and helps editors to get an overview of articles on a topic (e.g. to spot duplicate articles); such "topic" categories are generally diffused into subcategories when they contain more than a few hundred pages. We also have categories for administrative purposes (e.g. Category:Living people, Category:1950 births and Category:All disambiguation pages); such categories often contain thousands of pages so are of little use for human navigation, but are used by some bots (e.g. to spot things like an article about a person who was born 200 years ago, but is listed as a BLP). Year-of-death is not a useful topic category for a tree (which may well be notable for something that happened hundreds of years before its death) and these categories are also unlikely to be useful for bots. DexDor (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Not a useful topic category" is hypothetical and subjective, and I disagree with its assertion as a fact. People browse in different ways, and I think it's likely somebody would find it useful, if only to stumble across an article on a "hey, I wonder what happened in the year I was born" whim. Bots also use information in different ways, cross-indexing data for search and AI purposes that we can't know or predict. "May be notable for something that happened hundreds of years before" could be said of human year-of-birth or year-of-death categories as well, as most of the people were known for things that occurred years later or years prior. Agyle (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It might (just) be useful for a person who wants to know what happened in the year they were born, but by that reasoning we should also have, for example, categories for people born on each day of the year (to help readers find who they share a birthday with) (example CFD); it's better to categorize individual plants by more encyclopedic characteristics - e.g. by species, by continent/country or by reason for notability (science, law, military, religion etc).
Every category has costs (adding to the complexity of the category structure, maintenance effort, watchlist noise, reader confusion when categories aren't fully populated) and (IMO) the costs of these categories outweigh the benefits. Bots are used on biography articles - where there are many thousands of such articles, where there are important things like BLP tags involved and where there are simple rules (e.g. nobody lives >200 years) - it is very unlikely that bots could provide a similar benefit for these categories. DexDor (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A division by years can be useful to a reader researching a particular year (Category:1974 includes 1974 animal deaths‎, 1974 deaths‎‎, 1974 disasters, etc.), while a division by decades avoids sparse/empty categories (there are far fewer individual trees than individual animals). For comparison, human deaths use
People are initially divided between Living people and Dead people, which is not done with Individual animals and Individual trees. Use "tree" rather than "individual tree" in the category renamings, as is done with animals; some people said they were confused that the current name meant the death of an entire plant species, but the category page can clarify this in the opening paragraph. If an editor mistakenly adds the demise of a tree species to the category, it can be corrected; given how unusual a verifiable, precise year/decade for a tree species' extinction would be, this should occur rarely or never. Category:Extinctions chronologically separates extinctions only by geological epoch (e.g. Pleistocene or the current Holocene). Agyle (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found a few examples of individual plants that are notable, and placed them in Category:Individual organisms, so Category:Individual plants could conceivably be created - now, it is unlikely these plants will die during the time wikipedia is around since they're all many thousands of years old, but I'd generally prefer to have a broader vs more restricted coverage - thus Category:Plant deaths by decade and Category:2010s plant deaths, I don't think we need more precision than that as these cats will be sparsely populated in any case.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Humongous Fungus is a fungus, but King Clone's plant, so "Individual plants" would have one 12,000-year-old bush. I found a seguaro cactus named Grand One that might meet WP:GNG, and "Thousand-Year-Old Rosebush" has less coverage but is mentioned in Hildesheim. Obi-Wan Kenobi, you're the only one preferring decade to year splits so far, with 3-4 keeps for years. I'd suggest adding Individual plants above the current Individual trees, and fit in whatever death categories we decide on wherever they make sense. My suggested renames would fit in like
Category:Individual plants → Category:Individual trees → Category:Tree deaths by year → Category:2014 tree deaths
Plus a parallel branch of "Plant deaths" categories when an individual plant that's not a tree dies.
Agyle (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We do not need to categorize individual plants by death date. I also think it's time to close this discussion. This is not my last name (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have read through this and can not find a reason why a specific plant dieing is defining. Maybe at the species level we might want to do something like this, but then we are generally not able to establish an actual year. So let this just die. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:17, 31 March 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:Absurd comedy television series[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) 23:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic of a television show. Also the majority of articles in the category have no mention in the article of the show being "absurd", so it is WP:OR. Frankly it is a negative term that should not be used without a very reliable source anyways, let alone in a category. STATic message me! 05:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • against deletion: Since when is "absurd comedy" a negative term? Some of the best comedy films, TV series, radio series,.. have been absurd comedy. Also, it's not that difficult to define. When strange, out-of-the-impossible situations occur in a work of comedy it can be defined as "absurd comedy". Also, a lot of these comedy series are marketed that way, so sources can be found. Even in Wikipedia's own article about absurdism as a style examples of absurd comedy are mentioned. I agree sources should be used for exact definition, but in the end defining "absurd comedy" is not as subjective as defining "cult comedy", for instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjell Knudde (talk • contribs) 05:54, 24 February 2014‎
Well, what makes it a negative term is that when someone tells you a tall tale and you reply "That's absurd!", what you mean is that you think they're lying. It means "preposterous", "unreasonable", "not believable". Which is why films, TV shows, movies, books, etc., which make use of absurdity as a literary or storytelling device are correctly described as absurdist works, not as absurd ones. Calling a work "absurd" without the -ist suffix implies a commentary on the work's degree of success or failure as a work, not a neutral description of the storytelling devices within it. Bearcat (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absurd is a point of view and not definable for categorization....William 12:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly an opinion. CTF83! 00:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- We cannot have POV categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If "absurd comedy" was an established term that had a clear definition, widely used in reliable sources and applied to a consistent set of works, this would be a workable category. However the fact that most of these articles have not been identified as such in the text shows that this is not the case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What degree of "absurdity" is necessary for a show to qualify as an "absurd comedy", and whose standards of what constitutes "absurdity" get to define whether a show is an "absurd comedy" or not? For just one example, I see South Park has been added here — and while I certainly won't deny that it sometimes (but not always) uses absurdist humour as a device in pursuit of its goals, those goals themselves have far more to do with satire and social commentary than with absurdity for the sake of absurdity. And exactly the same problem applies to Spitting Image, too. Lots of other shows, further, incorporate absurdist aspects without being defined by that fact sufficiently to warrant categorization as such — The Big Bang Theory, Archer, Seinfeld, Family Guy, Trailer Park Boys and The IT Crowd, to name just six that come readily to mind, have all veered into absurdism at times, but in none of them is absurdism the central or defining feature of the show. And let's not even get into pretty much every show that ever aired on Adult Swim. Or Community. Or, come on now, The Simpsons. (I promise I'll stop with the examples now.) By all means, shows that regularly use absurdist humour can and should be listed as examples in surreal humour, nobody's said otherwise — but as a category, it violates several Wikipedia principles including WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:OC#ARBITRARY. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:39, 1 March 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:American Theatre Hall of Fame inductees[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 for now; this is without prejudice to a future nomination for renaming or listification/deletion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Since the title of the article is now called "American Theater Hall of Fame," with the spelling T-H-E-A-T-E-R, I think the American Theater Hall of Fame inductees category should reflect that change, please. Mr. Brain (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nomination
  • Category:American Theatre Hall of Fame inductees to Category:American Theater Hall of Fame inductees — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Brain (talk • contribs) (14:40 UTC, 20 FEB 2014)
    Presumably this is nominated because the article is at American Theater Hall of Fame. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose speedy The article was moved less than three days ago and without a WP:RM discussion, therefore C2D doesn't apply. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Support speedy I know the article was moved less than three days ago, but since the article's now titled "American Theater Hall of Fame," shouldn't the title of the category be "American Theater Hall of Fame inductees," with "Theater" spelled T-H-E-A-T-E-R? I'm just saying. Mr. Brain —Preceding undated comment added 14:56, 20 February 2014‎
    Comment The speedy criteria are strict, C2D explicitly says "longstanding stability at that particular name". This doesn't apply to the new name, and therefore a full WP:CFD discussion is needed. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Support speedy per C2A: while strictly speaking "theatre" to "theater" is a regional spelling change, it's a proper name issue. For instance, moving a cat called "National Association for the Advancement of Coluored People" would certainly fall within C2A because the name of the organization is not spelled that way. Furthermore, C2D should apply because the issue that led to the pagemove was a spelling correction to reflect the proper name's actual spelling, not merely a change of spelling conventions. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment C2A explicitly says, that "Differences between British and American spelling [...] are not considered errors", and therefore it doesn't apply either. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Read my statement: it's not a British-American spelling difference, it's the actual name of the organization. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the actuall name of the organisation is "Theater Hall of Fame", and the word "American" isn't even part of it. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mr. Brain: @Mendaliv: There is no point in posting "support" at speedy; this is not a consenus-forming discussion. Once an objection is lodged to a speedy, it needs a full discussion unless the opposer withdraws. Doesn't matter if there are 100 supports and one oppose; it needs a full discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @BrownHairedGirl: I respectfully agree with you about a full discussion being needed about this topic. That being said, I'd like to politely discuss the possibility of a new category called "American Theater Hall of Fame inductees" being created. User: Mr. Brain —Preceding undated comment added 19:34, 20 February 2014‎
    @Mr. Brain: That isn't done by adding the proposal back to the "Current nominations" section. For how to do that see WP:CFD#HOWTO. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Armbrust: If it's permissible, I'd still like to continue adding people to the theater hall of fame inductees category regardless of whether or not my nomination's approved. I hope to hear some news about my nomination soon. Mr. Brain (talk) 15:27, February 21, 2014 (UTC)
  • rename per nom. I wish we could have speedied this, not sure I understand the opposition, it's an obvious match to article title.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename as it seems pretty straightforward. Some people are just slow to react when it turns out we have the wrong name sometimes.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do have to ask why it's "American Theater Hall of Fame" in cat and article title when the organization is simply "Theater Hall of Fame" in both its website and all the press mentions cited on the page. If it's a disambiguation, shouldn't it be Theater Hall of Fame (American) or something like that? "American" is neither the official or common name in sources.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
shows a number of hits. In any case, we shouldn't have an RM discussion here; the standard approach is, match the cat to the article, if the article title is wrong, start an RM...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just mentioned it because it might explain why someone would have wanted to discuss the article title before moving the cat, rather than assuming they can't spell. The cat should parallel the article title, of course.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename: ridiculous that this wasn't speedied. Endorse trouting for Armbrust. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an issue of whether a person can spell or not, but the category title should parallel the article title. Please let me know if and when a bot is going to start the renaming process. Mr. Brain (talk)
You're not supposed to !vote twice, even on such an easy rename. Fixed extra vote after notifying __ E L A Q U E A T E 10:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete as we always do -- Yet another unnecessary category for a NN award. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't plan on voting again, but I do have to ask why this category should be deleted. There are a lot of people who have been inducted into the American Theater Hall of Fame. Regardless of whether the category gets renamed or not, I do plan on continuing to populate the category myself, with reference points for all the inductees. Mr. Brain (talk)
I'm glad you're not planning on voting again because that would make a third time. Generally, so you know for the future, the fact that you nominated this change counts as a vote for it. I've fixed your extra one with this edit. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and Delete. This is not the type of thing that people would always be identified as. It is much more useful to have lists than categories for awards. We have to much award category clutter and need to cut it down.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
John Pack Lambert Do you propose that someone compose an A-Z list of all the people who have been inducted into the American Theater Hall of Fame? I'm curious about what you have to say about that suggestion. Get back to me soon. Maybe I can help. Mr. Brain (talk)
I understand why people who are stage actors wouldn't always be identified as Theater Hall of Fame inductees. That being said, this category should still exist as a way of acknowledging that said people have achieved this honor during their prospective careers. Mr. Brain (talk)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_24&oldid=1138399272"