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.
Delete These aren't "segmented interstates" so much as cases where the same number got reused for multiple interstates, as the highways are unrelated aside from their number and there are no plans to connect any of them. (A segmented highway would be something more like U.S. Route 2, where the two sections are explicitly considered to be the same highway, and gaps like that on interstates are usually temporary and not worth categorizing.) While it's not terribly common for two-digit interstates, repetition of numbers happens all the time with three-digit interstates and isn't especially noteworthy. TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation23:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and non-defining. There is nothing inherently different between these interstates and say Interstate 96, which only exists in Michigan, except that there is no other highway as of yet designated Interstate 96.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete, not on the grounds that it is now completely empty, but on the grounds that it is just a POV fork. I'm totally open regarding the debate whether Yazidis are their own ethnoreligious group. But if they are, then this is clearly not based on a distinct language which simply doesn't exist. If recreated, this one should even be SALTed. --PanchoS (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yezidis may perhaps self-identify as a separate nation from Kurds, but they certainly speak Kurdish. There is not such a thing "Yezidi language".GreyShark (dibra) 10:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: If the Top 14 and Pro D2 categories are merged, a reclassification doesn't need to happen on an annual basis following promotion/relegation. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: If the Premiership and Championship categories are merged, a reclassification doesn't need to happen on an annual basis following promotion/relegation. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Note:Category:Women translators is also being considered for deletion/merging in the discussion below. -RD
Nominator's rationale: we have encyclopaedic categories for Translators by nationality and century. Being male or female is not a defining feature, in fact potentially a gender bias as there are more male Translators on WP than female. LibStar (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closing Admin: The women category was not tagged until 7 hours after the original nomination; please be sure to leave a full week from that time before closing the nomination. – RevelationDirect (talk) 04:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I disagree these categories would constitute gender-bias. They rather expose Wikipedia's already existing gender bias, and at least for that reason are useful. They might be turned into a hidden tracking category though, but that would require a larger debate. --PanchoS (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: I am notorious for creating women categories on wikipedia and would like say in that my opinion the fuss was a Tempest in a teapot that got fanned into a flame by CfD-insiders who ghettoized women against policy. Here is why:
The reason for creating women categories is simple: Almost invariably in every biography-related category (including this particular one under discussion) there are many more biographies about men than about women. There is a lot of speculation about this state of affairs and many editors are working to try and correct this ‘systemic bias'. It helps the efforts to have separate women-only categories so editors can easily gauge the areas that need work more urgently.
Since having women ghettoized in their own categories is counter-productive, the solution was to create such categories with a non-diffusing template that states (in this particular example} :
This is a non-diffusing subcategory of Category:Translators. It includes translators that can also be found in the parent category, or in diffusing subcategories of the parent
Broaden Discussion/Upmerge-Delete If this nomination includes Category:Women translators, I support it because I don't think this has been male dominated for awhile so female members of the profession are less noteworthy nor do I think there is a clear female "voice" in translation like there is with authors and historians. But I can't endorse deleting only the male one. The femal category is now also tagged. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: Tagging the page is not sufficient to include it this discussion. You should notify the page creator, notify the editors who already voted before the nomintion was changed, add it to the nomination list and make sure the closing Admin allows for extra time. Ottawahitech (talk) 03:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
After re-reading your comment, you gave concrete concerns so I'll address them here: I noted in the header that the discussion has broadened. I notified the closing admin that this should stay open an extra 7 hours. I'm under no obligation to notify the category creator but they're inactive in any case. The only editor contribution before my suggestion who hasn't already been pinged was @PanchoS: who is now notified. Thanks for your diligence to ensure a valid process here. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion here of gendered categories has not adequately considered that some categories are more likely to be gender-dominated than others. For example, a category of "Female winners of the Croix de Guerre" would be clearly justified since so few have been awarded this medal, e.g. Milunka Savić and Isabel Weld Perkins, but there is not need for a separate category "Male winners of the Croix de Guerre". (I am surprised that such the category "Female winners of the Croix de Guerre" does not yet exist!) Also, it is not surprising that there is a "Male nurses" since the field is statistically dominated by females. The category of translators may not need a separate Female category. I'm trying to add a perspective, not decree which categories would warrant gendered sub-divisions.Pete unseth (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(For what it is worth, the category "Female winners of the Croix de Guerre" has now been created.)
Merge both male and female categories back to Category:Translators. Gender splits may be appropriate, where the occupation (or subject) is dominated by one gender: female military award winners are unusual. It may also be appropriate where performance is significantly different: male and female novelists tend to produce somewhat different fiction, atleast some kinds of it. However, translators strikes me as a case where gender is wholly irrelevant to performance. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose or upmerge But if these are kept, I suggest making Category:Translators a non-diffusing category; this way we have the broad category to search for everyone, and the "neighborhoods" for those who care about the gender issues. Montanabw(talk)07:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose making it a non-diffusing category - they cause complications by being an exception to the normal rules of categorization. If (as an editor) you want a list of all the articles in a category (including subcats) then use a tool that provides such a list (which usually shows many articles that the "non-diffusing" parent cat does not). DexDor(talk)07:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge the categories. Apart from categories (eg actors/actresses) where gender is relevant to the roles that can be played, a structure like that of Category:Physicians is quite adequate. Eg Category:German physicians and non-diffusing Category:German women physicians; with gender-neutral specialists and by-century categories (the "German physicians" category would eventually be a container category when all German physicians are in a "by-century" category) Hugo999 (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notion that we need parrallel male/female categories comes from a misunderstanding of gender bias. It is not gender biased to categorize based on the historical reality that people of a certain sex were came to and were treated in a particular field of endevor differently. That is why we have a category for female US senators but not male ones for example.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
I would have to dig deeper into the norm. I am an non-typical Alpha-male, in a house run by two women and have three independent daughters. They allow me to beat my chest, "claim" my territory, and then carry on as usual. I have been married going on 40 years and have a deep respect for women, in the work place or not. My wife even drove over-the-rode (48 states and Canada) with me as my co-driver for five years and was often subjected to bias. She is a great truck driver and received equal pay that we had to fight for. I joke that I am the boss of my house and I do exactly what they let get away with.
Anyway, I struggle with the idea of gender equality on Wikipedia, that includes internment or ghettoization, and regard non-diffusing subcategories as a step backwards. We need more active (and equally treated) editors on Wikipedia, that are not males (how was that for reversal), and treatment and coverage should be impartial. How can we accomplish that with "separate but equal"? How can we stem gender-bias with biased coverage or separation? I have been waiting for Wikipedia to fall into the Hollywood practice of calling all actors/actresses an actor then recreating the gender sub-division cycle by having to add male/female. On Wikipedia this would likely change "American actress" into "American female actor". IMDb has made the switch and re-division with "Actors/ Male" and "Actors/Female/".
Conclusion: Then I read, "It helps the efforts to have separate women-only categories so editors can easily gauge the areas that need work more urgently", and then I can see a definite purpose. Sometimes it seems sound reasoning can win a battle, as something that can help decrease systemic bias can not be harmful, and might just "expose Wikipedia's already existing gender bias". Well crap, this means it will definitely be deleted now!
Comment: I am the category creator; I was not notified that this category was up for deletion, and have only just discovered it. I would like to bring it up before one or two relevant Wikiprojects to solicit further discussion, but I cannot promise that will occur before the closing deadline. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa.22:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both: I have become a fan of non-diffusing categories since it keeps everyone in the parent category while also allowing subcategories to be formed for the tracking purposes mentioned by Ottawahitech and others above. In response to the comments that there is no evidence male and female translators translate differently, I would say that having no evidence for one aspect of gender and translation is a bit of a red herring; it may or may not be true, but it is not the same thing as saying there are no other useful reasons for tracking gender and translation. Also, why do we keep assuming there are necessarily only two gender subcategories that could be formed? There may well be translators who don't want to identify as either male or female, which is another argument for having a non-diffusing parent category.Alafarge (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support Fayenatic London's preferences, as (I think) the person who created the category long ago. Your reasoning seems sound, and I'd encourage you to be bold! -Pete (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Pete. When it comes to categories, some changes can be done speedily but the criteria for that are strict, and any other unilateral changes to category names are considered to be "out of process". – FayenaticLondon09:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
This category groups occupation articles with the name "cleaners" in it which is non-definning, especially since these will fit so nicely into the parent category. (Alternatively, if kept, we should rename it to Category:Cleaning occupations to make it clear this is not a biography category.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I started trying to fix this category and its neighborhood but then had second thoughts - should I even try or am I simply wasting my time? Ottawahitech (talk) 04:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
Note Ottawahitech may be interested in creating a category with this same name that would house biography articles for people who are cleaners once this nomination is complete. So that this nomination can proceed, I'm recreating the original contents to avoid any appearance that it was emptied out of order. No objection to Ottawahitech recreating a different category under the same name. (See here for further discussion.) RevelationDirect (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Category currently contains 6 articles on occupations, no biographies. It has no other parent, and there is no clear criterion to distinguish its members from the parent. – FayenaticLondon21:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. Looking at the manual or partial merges (which I considered keeps of the category itself) they are more supported than the full upmerge/deletion votes. As for better definitions of the category or the like, that's better for an RFC than here since there's no consensus here on the scope of the category itself. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recently-created category of unclear purpose. Is it for American missionaries who worked in Africa, African missionaries who worked in America, or something else? If it's for missionaries who are African Americans, do we categorise to that level? I don't see similar in Category:Missionaries. Redrose64 (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:American missionaries. I'd be open to breaking down missionaries by denomination if there was enough contents and some would have clear ethnic overlaps: African Methodist Episcopal missionaries or Korean Presbyterian Church missionaries. But, going through the articles, having different ethnically African American Missionaries at different times go to different places for different reasons on behalf of different churches seems non-defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Manual merge to American missionaries, only where needed. Some are already in more specific sub-cats, e.g. American Christian missionaries, American Methodist missionaries. – FayenaticLondon13:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale for creating the category- The category is significant in light of how few missionaries have been sent overseas from the African American community. The category is meant to refer to African-Americans who were sent out as missionaries from churches in America, regardless of where they have gone, though I believe all of those included so far went to Africa. Pete unseth (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Potential keep -- However the scope of the category needs to be carefully defined. I think it is Black American missionaries, not American missionaries to Africa or African missionaries to America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs)
Comment I have added two people to the list, one who served in Italy and the other who served as a missionary in the United States. There are problematic issues in the notion of "from the African-American community". I think what might be realistically being aimed at is something like "Historically African-American protestant churches", which exclude African-American Catholics, African-American Latter-day Saints, and many other African-Americans as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problem is that this is an intersection of ethnicity (or maybe even race), in a way that the creator did not intend. I think what the creator really wants is Category:Missionaries sponsored by historically African-American Churches, because I really do not see Alan Cherry fitting in the scope of this category, but I even less see him being included under the proposed name. The problem is that the Mainline/Evangelical/Black tripartite split of Protestantism used in contemporary political polling has never been incorporated into any of our category structures, and so I do not think we are ready to start now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because the mere intersection of ethnicity and being a missionary is not what this would work covering. It would only work if it is an intersection of religious affiliation and being a missionary. Thus, we could intersect being affiliated with African-American Protestantism and being a missionary. Alan Cherry and Keith Hamilton are not so affiliated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete incomprehensible scope; a mess... We don't categorize missionaries by race/ethnicity, nor do we bishops, saints, saviors, or other religious folks - and we ought not. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: SMALLCAT. There is no way this cat will ever get bulked out enough to need navigation, as many of the potential items have been nuked in the past per overcat. MSJapan (talk) 08:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Reply - There is one template. We don't have navboxes and templates because they're not useful - we tried Grand Lodges navboxes, but there'd be hundreds of entries, so we didn't end up with a useful item. We tried Freemasonry by country, but they're really not comparable, and again, hundreds of entries. The topic is large, but it's not classifiable in neat boxes. What we generally end up with is trivial intersections, which are then not useful or accurate. MSJapan (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
This category consists mostly of politicians and journalists who have been critical of FEMA, mostly about the Hurricane Katrina response around 2005. The problem is that none of these people made a long-term career out of FEMA criticism; they addressed crime, FEMA deficiencies, tax policy, job growth and other issues. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As it is a rather uncontroversial thing to be a FEMA critic, this clearly goes to far and isn't defining. We could otherwise categorize every single biography by thousand categories (pro-this, anti-that) and would both fail to preserve neutrality and accuracy, and to capture the really defining aspects of a personality. --PanchoS (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- We cannot have a category for every performer who stands on a stage (literal, in press, on Internet, etc) and says FEMA did not do well. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (conditional) I was affected by Katrina and Rita, saw the FEMA debacle first hand. It took five days to get water to the people. I wasn't in New Orleans and many still don't know how terrible the relief efforts were managed or the horrible conditions at the Superdome. My family was screwed over by FEMA, and would very much be a charter member of any "Screwed over by FEMA" association as I am a very vocal and written critic. FEMA took hundreds of mobile homes and thousands of smaller trailers from families, on a deadline regardless of need, and piled them up to rot. They couldn't sell them at first because trailer manufacturer's and sales companies claimed they would go bankrupt. People with money, that didn't need the trailers, can still buy them at "auctions" in bulk lots . They buy them (at junkyard prices), mark them up, and sale them at a profit. All the expense has amounted to a very large loss to tax payers when some agency could have been set up and sold them to those in actual need. There are still many hundreds of both rotting away. Note: Sorry! I did state I was a critic. If someone can add my name to the category as a critic (the condition), then let's keep the category, otherwise the nominator has valid points for deletion. Otr500 (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
