The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Upmerge to Category:2000s American animated films. There is Category:Children's films, which this is strangely not linked to at present. Regardless of whether that is a POV category structure, it doesn't make much sense to intersect it with the animated films category structure because most animated films are for children. So any films that qualify as children's films should be categorized as such (if we're going to do that; I don't care) completely separate from their categorization as animated films. postdlf (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2011 (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:History of Sahara
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.
Oppose for now. Parent category is Category:Sahara, and the current name follows that format. The head article is at Sahara, and Category:Sahara follows that format ... so while "The Sahara" is the format I am most familiar with, we should seek some consistency here, and the nomination would brings us no closer to that consistency. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:35, 6 January 2011 (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:Men by occupation
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: There's a reason Category:Women by occupation exists, and it's not because women have historically had open access to all those occupations. I see no reason for the parallel category to exist: it will be full of non-notable intersections and of an unmanageable size. I am also nominating some of its subcategories. (Category:Male dancers isn't an obnoxious category in the same way, but it's redundant to Category:Danseurs, which seems to be the accepted one; I'm neglecting Category:Sportsmen at the moment because that has its own set of subcats and we can deal with this first.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, because I don't yet see a valid reason to delete. Category:Men by occupation is a container category, which should be retained so long as it has any sub-categories. The sub-categories should be assessed individually against WP:CATGRS, and I see nothing in the nomination which addresses that guideline. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A person's sex (commonly misdescribed as gender) is obviously a notable characteristic. If we are to have female categorises, it is obvious that we need male ones too. We certainly need the categories for dancers and actors, as the roles are sex-related. Men cannot dance women's parts in ballet; actors rarely portray the opposite sex. We therefore need the parent category too. I am less convinced about comedians and film directors. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the issue is that the categories aren't used; what's in them is random and not representative of the actual class on Wikipedia. I'm just not sure it's policy to have that category...? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: per the long-standing guidance at WP:CATGRS, at WP:Cat gender, a female category does not have to be balanced by a male one, and vice-versa. Both should be assessed on their individual merits, which is what this group nomination fails to do. It lumps together male film directors (which looks to me like a hard-to-justify category) with male actors (which has some prima facie merit, because as you point out men cannot usually play female parts). If the nominator is serious about deleting these categories, they should be nominated separately to allow an individual discussion on each of them. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issue behind the issue is that probably few of these people are actually notable as these intersections anymore. Barbara Harris (bishop) was notable for being a woman; after that it went downhill fast. Mangoe (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please folks, can we have separate discussions for these? These issues in categorising actors are different to those for directors, because an actor's job is to portray a gendered character, whereas a director's physical person is usually not visible in a film. We may reach the same decision on both of them, but lumping them together is a very bad way of ensuring that each category is properly considered on its own merits. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite sure that you are a very accomplished gum-chewin-walker, but on this occasion you didn't really address each category. "Clearly we don't need" is an assertion, not a rationale. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned that the analogues have been repeatedly deleted. If you need a crystal clear rationale, I claim they should be deleted because people are not notable for having the intersection of being male and being an actor, or a comedian, or a film director. That said, I have no objection to considering each of these separately if you feel that each one needs it or will be adversely affected by the group nomination. Perhaps if the nominator could be approached to agree to this ... ? Good Ol’factory(talk)22:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Male actors was created on 4 April 2005, and deleted as empty the following day. It was re-created on 15 August 2009, and I don't see any sign of a deletion discussion for it. I'm sure you have a good substantive case to make for deleting it, but I think we should hear that case :) -BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion for the male one goes way back: Category_talk:Actors#Category:Male_Actors. It was actually Category:Actresses / Category:Female actors that I was referencing, since various categories for female actors have been repeatedly deleted (often they have been nationality-specific ones, most recently here). Category:Female comedians was deleted here. There's a fair bit of precedent for these, mostly on the female side though—I'm just assuming the same considerations would apply to male categories, if not more so. The rationale for these is because people are not defined by the intersection of the male gender and these occupations. Good Ol’factory(talk)03:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to follow the precedent but would also welcome a new dedicated discussion on it. I shan't go on as I think you're wanting a fresh discussion on each of these individually, which I agree would probably be more productive. If possible, I wouldn't object to a close of this discussion of "need to pursue these individually". Good Ol’factory(talk)22:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peterkingiron. Reliable sources usually impart a specific relation between gender and the above noted topics (no one has shown otherwise) and it's not Wikipeida's job to try to politically correct reliable sources. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2011 (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.
Animal breeds originating in COUNTRY
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 per nom. And I also do not think that this will have any influence on edit wars as Montanabw suggested. Ruslik_Zero20:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this and all of the other "breeds originating" articles. Animal breeds may be closely associated with a given nation, but given shifting animal movement and shifting national boundaries, the animal breed may have "developed" elsewhere. In this case, many animals associated with Poland may have "originated" when the nation was part of Russia. We have had some significant edit wars over the "origin" of eastern European animal breeds and would prefer to keep the existing category. I recommend the same for all other animal breed articles so tagged. Montanabw(talk)20:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename all. These were nominated at the speedy section but were opposed. My rationale is to standardize the way subcategories in Category:Animal breeds by country of origin are presented. "Animal breeds originating in COUNTRY" seems to be the standard of the parent categories, with modern borders being used to define the country. This format is already in place for the subcategories of Category:Dog breeds, and this nomination was made to standardize the chicken, pig, and horse breeds subcategories. I see no reason that the parent categories should be in one format and the subcategories be in a different one. That's why the speedy criterion C2C exists, which these were nominated under. Good Ol’factory(talk)02:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Changing national boundaries is no reason to remove an animal from its country of origin. If it was originated in what was called Poland at the time, put it under the Poland category, regardless of what happens to the country's boundaries.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not rename and furthermore, correct the dog breeds: OK, so dog breeds goes one way and ALL the others go the other? This should be a red light. But that aside, there is a need to allow more than one nation to claim "origin." "Nation of origin" is too simplistic for animal breeds when you allow a current boundary line to define what is usually a creation combining the needs of a culture and an ecosystem. National boundaries routinely shift but culture not so much and ecosystem minimally. (For example, Sudan's boundaries will shift, probably starting next week!) That's my concern. Let me give you a prime example: the horse breed Lipizzan. This particular breed was started by the nobility of the Holy Roman Empire, bringing in outside horses to a number of studs across what today are multiple European nations including Austria, Italy, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Croatia and Hungary. The village of Lipica, which was also spelled Lipizza, gave the breed its name, has been part of at least three different nations, and now is in Slovenia -- but it wasn't even the location where most of the foundation stallions were placed. This issue is so contentious that there was a lawsuit in the EU between Slovenia and Austria because Slovenia wanted to claim exclusive use of the word "Lipizzan" to describe the breed, even though the breed's primary breeding centers are in what today is Austria. We have had some nasty editing spats hit over this issue. There are similar issues cropping up over the Karabakh horse, which though it appears to be the same thing as the Azerbaijan horse, god forbid I say so anywhere but here or dare to merge the articles! The point is that these animals originated in a certain geographic part of the world with ever-shifting boundaries. =:-O Anyway, that's my position. I also favor Occam's razor-- a simpler title is preferable to a more complicated one. The overall "Animal breeds by country or origin" may work as a parent cat name, but even "Animal breeds by country" would be simpler.Montanabw(talk)16:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Categories cannot, nor are they meant to, address all of the issues you raise. All we really need in the category system is some consistency and a reasonable degree of clarity. Consistency is introduced by patterning the subcategories after the parent categories. And I believe using demonyms when referring to animals is not the clearest way to refer to things, since neither animals nor animal breeds are really infused with nationality. Good Ol’factory(talk)09:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I think naming all the cats "COUNTRY" animal breeds" works better. It's a little vague, but can mean anything it needs to. I hate people having nationalist edit wars, they are some of the nastiest ones on wiki (Noticed the stuff over Irish themes? YIKES!). Here, if multiple countries want to "claim" some animal, more power to them. Montanabw(talk)17:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is no one has formally proposed this, which would also bring consistency to the scheme if implemented. That format is not currently used at all except for with Kosovo and United States chicken breeds. I got the impression from your initial comment that you preferred the status quo mixed bag of formats and/or "NATIONALITY animal breeds" if you had to choose one. Good Ol’factory(talk)09:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't rename I see Montanabw's point that the existing naming is more flexible and presents fewer opportunities for nationalism. My objection would be much milder without the word "originating". That is a word just waiting to be abused. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Rename all - While this is not a best solution, the best solution will never come until there is a consistent, standardize approach. Rename, let the effects sink in for a while, and a best solution eventually will come forth. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further to that—it's not my intention to make these proposals the final category names that will necessarily last forever. The nomination is just intended to bring some consistency to what we have now, and then we can go from there and perhaps have a nomination where a different format is chosen. But for now, it makes little sense to have a mix of two or three different formats for the same category tree. Good Ol’factory(talk)10:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Renaming all actually is more work that renaming the ONLY category (dog breeds) that currently uses this format. I really think this is overkill. At least PLEASE don't say "originating in" Or else volunteer to help me out the next time the Slovenia versus Austria edit war starts at the Lipizzan article. Montanabw(talk)18:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the pigs category is not the only one. The parent categories for animals all use it, and in my opinion it is superior. It's not a question of how much work it is, since a bot performs the renaming. I don't really see a consensus for the FOOian animals version anyway. Good Ol’factory(talk)22:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, I said, Dogs, not pigs. And I think dogs IS the only one...name the rest if I'm wrong. Frankly I think the "animal breeds by country of origin" thing is also a problem. But the two of us can just argue "my version is better" all day long. I suggest we close with NO CONSENSUS and let sleeping dogs lie. Montanabw(talk)01:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yes, I meant dogs. 5:2 (so far) is a fairly good consensus in favour of consistency, IMO. If this is closed as "no consensus", I'll be opening another nomination to standardise these, so nothing's going to "lie" for long. I'd sooner have it relisted than closed as NC, though.
"And I think dogs IS the only one...name the rest if I'm wrong." The rest are the 83 subcategories in Category:Animal breeds by country of origin. And Category:Cattle breeds originating in India. Add those to the dog breed ones and we're looking at about a 3:1 ratio in favour of the format I'm proposing. The 83 animal breed ones are parent categories, which is why these qualified for speedy renaming in the first place, which you have seen fit to extend here. What you don't seem to want to concede is that we need some form of consistency. This is a first step in that direction. If the change was made, it would then be open to you to propose that the tree change it's default naming scheme. Good Ol’factory(talk)01:22, 26 January 2011 (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:Kotzebue Sound Watershed
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Not notable. Google gives all of 12 hits, most from Wikipedia for Kotzebue Sound Watershed. I suspect that this is one of those USGS code names. Gulf of Alaska Watershed has all of 8 hits, again Wikipedia is a good number of those, but it does get some other hits. Gulf of Venezuela Watershed had 5 hits with all from Wikipedia or shadows. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2011 (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:Olympic competitors from Oregon
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. These athletes did not represent Oregon in the Olympics, but the United States, an independent nation, thus making it a trivial intersection.TM00:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Might want to review the articles, as no, these athletes did not all represent the US. Most did, but not all, see Harry Jerome and Christine Sinclair. And there is nothing against more being added of those who represented other countries. It is an easy way for readers to find people from Oregon who participated in the Olympics, using of course the very broad/loose interpretation of "from" that we use on Wikipedia. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per nom. There doesn't appear to be any other categories in this structure. All these people will (should) be included into their standard hometown cat (by sportspeople) and whatever country they represented at the Olympics. Lugnuts (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom as an irrelevant intersection. Olympic competitors are selected from nationwide pools on the basis of their sporting abilities, and their homes state has no more relevance to their selection than their occupation or marital status. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many US categories are split by state; so why not this one? The only reason that I can see against it is that this is potentially a performer by performance category. However, I would suggest that the Olympics are notable enough for that not to be an objection. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. This nearly gives the impression that Oregon has a team in the Olympics. In any case, division by U.S. state is not needed for Olympians. If American Olympians need to be divided, they are to be divided by sport and by medal-winning status (which they already are). Good Ol’factory(talk)22:37, 9 January 2011 (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:Redirects to documentation
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. There is no need to track redirects from the talk pages of template doc subpages to template talk pages. Also, they're not redirects to documentation. Bsherr (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I found this category during my clean-up of all the redirect categories and I really have no idea what it's for. It's contents, description and name seemed to be contradictory. We should also delete the corresponding template {{R to documentation}}. If the category is kept, it needs to clarified and/or renamed. McLerristarr | Mclay110:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I understand it now. It's for redirects from a non-existent documentation subpage to the template's talk page in which the "documentation" is kept. That's a bad idea. The templates should have proper documentation. I remember now that I was going to change the category for all redirects to talk pages. Rename to Category:Redirects to talk pages if other people feel there's a point in having that as a category; otherwise, I don't care if it is deleted. McLerristarr | Mclay110:58, 6 January 2011 (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:Irish chat shows
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:History of Ireland 1801-1922
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 and redirect. However, no explanation was given for why an additional year was added to the category name. If this is incorrect, then it can be immediately renamed to "1922" version.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2011 (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.
