Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 18 July 20 >

July 19

Category:Genderqueer people

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: split. – Fayenatic London 07:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Not everyone in this category explicitly identifies as genderqueer. We should follow the convention established in renaming List of people who identify as being genderqueer to List of people with non-binary gender identities (see discussion on that article's talk page). Note that there is a recurring and ongoing discussion regarding renaming the Genderqueer article to Non-binary gender, but this category rename discussion specifically concerns categorizing people appropriately, which is especially important for BLPs. Funcrunch ( talk) 21:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC) reply
CorbieVreccan, to be fair, queer has its roots in Western culture, while third gender has its roots in non-Western culture, which is why we don't see "traditional, indigenous communities that have Two Spirit people" use terms queer and genderqueer. I'm not sure what you mean by "urban" above, especially since I'm used to "urban" and " urban culture" being used as a euphemism for African-American culture; I take it that you mean " urban area"? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC) reply
No euphemisms intended. I thought my usage of urban vs rural areas was clear, as I said "rural communities" and "urban communities" :) If I'm only referring to specific cultural or ethnic groups, I will make that clear. The reason I mention this lack of usage in traditional cultures, or it still being considered as a slur by some, is that I know we will find people being put in this category who do not identify as such, or who find it really hurtful to see that on their page. I've seen older folks be really traumatized by being called "Queer." It was used as a hateful slur against me as a child, as well. Yelled at me by bashers with twisted faces as their fists came at me. I've reclaimed it, was part of Queer Nation, etc., but I understand not everyone can. Anyway, mislabeling already happens all the times with these categories; I'm just trying to forestall some of the problems that tend to arise with this stuff, and the cleanup we wind up having to do in the aftermath. I'm just bringing it up now because I'd rather do this here than on the talk page or in email of someone who's upset at having that cat on their BLP. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- I am profoundly unhappy with the implications of the main article, which seeks to assimilate aspects of non-human biology, where species are agender or bi-gender, with the human intersex condition (where are individual has organs which have elements of both male and female) and artificially manipulated transgender people. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC) reply
Peterkingiron, I'm not sure what you mean by "which seeks to assimilate aspects of non-human biology, where species are agender or bi-gender, with the human intersex condition." Which article are you speaking of? The Genderqueer article, for example, only talks about humans. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 09:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC) reply
I had a feeling I was making a rod for my own back in my comments. I consider it wrong to assimilate people with intersex conditions with transgender people, whose organs are the result of surgery. I do not feel I understand the subject fully and am not voting. Peterkingiron ( talk) 09:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC) reply
Category:People with non-binary gender identities now created. I'm not sure how to formally close this CfD, but I've removed the CfD notice from Category:Genderqueer people and posted notices and a link to this discussion on that talk page and in edit summaries for both categories. Funcrunch ( talk) 22:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • That's fine. Participants in a discussion shouldn't close the discussion themselves, an admin will pass one of these days and will do that. You might want to add a comment withdrawn in bold font to indicate that the issue has been settled already but it's not essential. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:50, 28 July 2017 (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:Business services companies

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 07:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Do need this specific category for very few companies. Easily be deleted or solve the purpose in other categories. Light2021 ( talk) 20:56, 19 July 2017 (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:Performance consulting firms

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 03:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Easily be job done. Unnecessary category is added. It only promote the corporate spam for some companies. Consulting or management consulting firms can easily be merged with one. Light2021 ( talk) 20:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • merge per rationale. The parent article shows every sign of being a vacuous marketing buzzphrase and until there's some proof that this is a real thing, these can go back to being regular old management consultants. Mangoe ( talk) 10:33, 20 July 2017 (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:Innovation consulting firms

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to parent Category:Management consulting firms ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Can be easily merged with other business category or not required a separate category for this one, Only purpose is solved to promote some non-notable companies making corporate spam. Light2021 ( talk) 20:51, 19 July 2017 (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:Police films

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge Category:Police films to Category:Films about police officers. I am not finding sufficient consensus about Category:Police comedy films, Category:Police detective films or Category:Police procedural films; all of these have other parents (e.g. Category:Police comedies, Category:Detective films or Category:Police procedurals and may be useful parts of those hierarchies; I am not persuaded that WP:NARROWCAT applies. This close is no bar to an early re-nomination if someone can see a clear way ahead for further steps that respect all the relevant hierarchies. I'm going to put Category:Police detective films within Category:Police procedural films for now. As for the parent Category:Films about law enforcement, it seems right to me that this now also includes Category:Prison films. – Fayenatic London 11:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Potential delete as not a defining characteristic. I don't believe Die Hard for instance, would be considered a "police film", and I note that there's no article or indication of what constitutes a police film. If not delete, then as per this discussion I believe the category should be renamed to "Law enforcement films". DonIago ( talk) 20:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC) reply
Good catch, though that only strengthens my feeling that the cat should be renamed merged or deleted, as I doubt there's a significant distinction between "Police films" and "Law enforcement films" from the standpoint of categorization. DonIago ( talk) 03:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  1. "Police comedy films": rename to "Law enforcement comedy films"
  2. "Police detective films": rename to "Law enforcement detective films"
  3. "Films about police officers": merge to "Films about law enforcement"
  4. "Police procedural films": merge to "Films about law enforcement" or rename to "Law enforcement procedural films". I'm inclined toward merging.
I think they could all be reclassified as subcats of "Films about law enforcement" if all else fails. Would that work? Oh, and should I formally CfD the subcats? DonIago ( talk) 03:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply
 Done Thanks for the guidance! DonIago ( talk) 04:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply
The discussion I linked to in my nomination preferred "Law enforcement" to "Police" as the more generalized terminology. I feel the same reasoning should be applied to the subcats at that point, but am uncertain whether detective and procedural films are discrete enough to really merit their own subcats in any case; I'd like to hear from other editors on that one. That would leave "Police comedy films" as the only open item. Your point about COMMONNAME is well-taken there. I'll link WT:FILM over to this discussion. DonIago ( talk) 04:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply
Betty Logan ( talk) 14:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply
Always value your input Betty! How would you handle things (if at all) vis a vis Category:Films about law enforcement? DonIago ( talk) 15:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply
After doing the above I would leave Category:Films about law enforcement as it is with the reconfigured Category:Films about police officers as a sub-category, at least for now. I think the main problem is with the categories lower down and these need to be addressed first (because upmerges obviously have a knock-on effect). My recommendations would result in dropping/merging three categories and I think that would address many of the problems with the hierarchy. At the moment I would favor retaining Category:Films about police officers and Category:Films about law enforcement and see how useful the distinction is after correcting the problems lower down. Betty Logan ( talk) 15:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply
I'd be amenable to that. DonIago ( talk) 15:53, 20 July 2017 (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:12th-century diplomatic conferences

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 12th-century, keep others. – Fayenatic London 12:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, diplomatic conferences were very rare in the Middle Ages. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge 14th and 15th centuries. The 12th century contains one item a Concordat (i.e. treaty). No doubt every treaty resulted from a conference of some kind, but that does not mean that every treaty needs also to be in a conferences tree. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:10, 22 July 2017 (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.

Greyhound racing competitions in the Republic of Ireland

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. – Fayenatic London 12:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Nominator's rationale This category should be in Greyhound racing competitions in Ireland and not the Greyhound racing competitions in the Republic of Ireland because in the greyhound racing industry Ireland refers to both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. This is similar to Six Nations Rugby etc. Northern Irish racing does not come under the UK banner and only comes under the Irish banner so the categories should be amended. An example of why it needs to be amended is the St Leger (Irish greyhounds) which has been held at both Republic and Northern Irish tracks. Many thanks Racingmanager ( talk) 18:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Reply If you'll list those that are both NI and the RoI I'll create a new category for them. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply
Properly formatted proposal created by me following discussion with proposer. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support All entries are on an all-island basis. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support -- This appears to be one of a number of sports that is organised on an all-Ireland basis. This should be reflected by having a single category, as is routine for all-Ireland and pre-partition subjects. This is a case where the split needs to be GB/Ireland, not UK/RoI. This also applies to Trades Unions and in some other cases. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:06, 22 July 2017 (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:Stories within One Thousand and One Nights

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. Timrollpickering 11:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, perhaps the categories themselves are a borderline case of smallcat but the parent category is also very small; and in addition the categories don't fit nicely in a "stories" and a "locations by fiction" tree. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:31, 19 July 2017 (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:Service companies

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Can easily be merged with other categories/ Sub. nothing substantial to add as an encyclopedic value. Light2021 ( talk) 17:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep What? Did you somehow make a mistake in the nomination? This is a significant division of companies in general, as opposed to primary-resource companies (mining, agribusiness, etc.) and manufacturing companies. Merging it anywhere would be quite confusing, and you're also confusing the nomination by requesting both merger and deletion. Nyttend ( talk) 11:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • comment This nomination is not particularly coherent, but OTOH the membership of this category is problematic. For instance I see Category:Military corporations which eventually (and correctly) contains Category:Weapons manufacturing companies, which certainly shouldn't be in the category being discussed. Some restructuring is in order. Mangoe ( talk) 13:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Default keep per lack of sensible argument for deletion. Restructure membership BOLDly as needed. — swpb T 13:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Potential keep -- Service companies is a category used on stock markets. The problem is that the term is an amorphous one, whose bounds are ill-defined. It may well need purging. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • keep no reason provided for changing this; no obvious reason for doing so; controls many sub-categories and articles. Meets the purpose of categories: help readers navigate to similar articles. Hmains ( talk) 18:22, 22 July 2017 (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:Ministers for Agriculture Ghana

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, the category had been emptied already ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Badly named duplicate of Category:Agriculture ministers of Ghana — swpb T 15:02, 19 July 2017 (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:Major Vertebrate groups extinct during the Tertiary

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:Tertiary extinctions of vertebrate taxa within new parent Category:Extinct vertebrate taxa. The initial concern was that there were no parent hierarchies, but I have put the nominated category into Category:Cenozoic extinctions and Category:Cenozoic vertebrates (which is within Category:Extinct vertebrates). I have chosen a new name which is different from the suggestions below in an attempt to be more consistent with these hierarchies. – Fayenatic London 14:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: For grammar, clarity, and to avoid arbitrary inclusion criterion. — swpb T 13:11, 19 July 2017 (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:Actresses from Scranton, Pennsylvania

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT — swpb T 13:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC) reply
Petscan shows 4 articles which could fit here, but I go by a minimum of 5. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment if it stays there should be a Category:Male actors from Scranton, Pennsylvania as well. Icarusgeek ( talk) 09:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_July_19&oldid=1138410923"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE