July 18
Category:Male wartime nurses
- 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Walt Whitman is the sole individual in this category. That is insufficient to justify the category's existence. Wlmg (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose We already have Category:Female wartime nurses, and Category:Male wartime nurses is just as notable and defining. This category was created to avoid the problem of Category:Wartime nurses being solely in the "female" tree, while Category:Female wartime nurses was created as a subcat so as to allow it to remain in Category:Women in war. This is a valid subcategory of Category:Male nurses and there is certainly no reason to suspect it will not grow larger over time.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment whoever decided to divide our biographical categories into men/women or males/females has created a morass. They should all be re-merged. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm hoping we can get to category intersections. We're already rather close. To note, there are around 8000 women-cats and around 6000 men last time I counted.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - We just had a CFD on this matter two months ago. --Lquilter (talk) 11:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes, now I remember, I originally argued for them to be merged. However, the "female" portion was argued to be called out so as to allow presence in Category:Women in war, which is a larger and well-developed category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge male and female categories together - and we not only have and CfD discussions about this kind of thing, but public off-wiki scandal about it. http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2013/apr/29/wikipedia-women-problem/ Ego White Tray (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You should dig deeper into the off-wiki scandal, which was ultimately a tempest in a teapot over a minor violation of existing guidelines at WP:EGRS. Ultimately, consensus KEPT the women novelists category, created one for men, and removed *all* novelists from the Category:American novelists category all together (putting them in century-based subcategories instead). As for this CFD, there is a significant history of men being nurses in wartime; for most of history, men were the MAIN nurses in wartime, out of need, until the 20th century.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The gender of the nurse has been a significant factor in what they have done and how they have been percieved by others. Gender is a very important factor in this case, and to wipe it away would be to rewrite history. We keep gender in cases where it is significant, and no one can really argue that gender is not significant here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Plain deletion should not be an option. The choice must either be to keep or merge with the female category. My preference is Keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2013 (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:Mutants (Transformers)
- 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per WP:SMALLCAT. There is only one article that falls into this category, and none of the other characters that would qualify have separate articles. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2013 (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:Dinocons
- 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose merging Category:Dinocons to Category:Dinobots
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. Per WP:OVERCAT. There are only 2 articles in this category, and both are already in the parent category. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2013 (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:Male United States Senators
- 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 idea that the existence of a category for women justifies or necessitates the creation of one for men is not supported by the guideline on categorization by gender, which states: "A gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic." Upmerging (strictly defined) is not a viable option as Category:United States Senators and Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives should not directly contain biographies; however, each affected article is in at least one appropriate Senators or Members of... subcategory. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. We really don't need a category splitting US Senators into male gender (into female gender is also debatable). I don't know the exact percentage of US Senators who have been male over the course of history, but I'm sure it's at least 95% of them. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
:Added House of Reps cat to discussion Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepThere are already categories for both Female United States Senators and Representatives. The current and past percentage of male Senators is irrelevant. --Wlmg (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid !keep reason. There's at least an argument for those female categories because they are on the short end of the gender disparity. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: To be consistent either way, Category:Male members of the United States House of Representatives should probably be part of this discussion also.
- Comment whoever decided to divide our biographical categories into men/women or males/females has created a morass. They should all be re-merged. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The traditional rule for gender/ethnicity categories was to categorize only when that feature was itself a defining feature of the identity; for instance, in a field in which one gender or ethnicity was disproportionately predominant, the ethnicity/gender of someone not of the majority was often a defining intersection. Since 90% of US Reps. historically have been male, it seems like overcategorization. Under the original criteria. Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality: "As another example, a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest, though it does not need to be balanced directly against a "Male heads of government" category, as historically the vast majority of political leaders have been male." --Lquilter (talk) 11:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are gender specific lists for almost every profession so deleting this one would achieve nothing O484 (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge To claim the female categories require male ones ignores the fact that there is Susan B. Anthony List and other similar groups in the US that exist for the sole purpose of promoting female candidates. There is not a George Washington's List that exists to promote male candidates. That said, I am unconvinced that we should subdivide female politicans doen to the level of specific legislative body served in, but that is not the issue here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- upmerge In this case, I think the pendulum swings to not needing the male-specific cats. Each of these has to be judged on its merits. For American male novelists, for example, there were findings of literature and even courses studying writing by men (as men). No such sources have been provided here in defense of these recently created cats.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- upmerge per applicable guideline. This is not the sort of situation where we need a male category to "balance" things; historically the vast majority of U.S. federal legislators have been men. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Even at present, the majority of members of both the US house and US senate are men, and women are pretty much at their all time highest percentage. The house has had one female speaker, but the senate has never had a female majority leader. Many states have never had a female senator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there have only ever been 45 female US senators, with one who served 1 day. Only 26 states have had female senators, and no state has had more than 3 female senators. Only 20% of the senate at present is female. I would not be surprised to see this percentage to rise in the future. There have been only 46 female senators, and by my count there were 1901 senators, but I might have gotten off a bit counting the list. That means that less than 3% of all US senators have been female. The current senate's 20% of the senate being women is an all time high, and higher than the 18.9% of women in the US House, although this is about the only time the senate has had a higher percentage of female than the house. There have been 261 female in the US house, but with the house both having over 4 times as many members and having members serve for 2 years instead of six, this might not be that much larger of a percentage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Another things that leads to higher turnover in the house is that members can be forced into show-downs against each other, senators never have the prospect of facing off against an incumbent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2013 (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:Sassanid Empire
- 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: per recent move of main article from "Sassanid" to "Sasanian". Constantine ✍ 07:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Irānshahr (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2013 (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:Summer camps in novels
- 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single- entry category of dubious utility. The included book series is related tangentially at best to the topic of summer camps, since the camp in question is far from a traditional summer camp (more of a safe haven and paramilitary training facility). Jerry Pepsi (talk) 06:25, 18 July 2013 (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:Medical evacuation vehicles
- 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Change from US military jargon to normal English - then articles like Austin K2/Y can go in the category. DexDor (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Field Ambulance which is the correct English term; and matches the article at Field Ambulance. Plus add a redirect for Medical evacuation vehicle. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - But which one; Military ambulances or field ambulances? The former sounds more descriptive. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- rename to Military Ambulance Field Ambulance is an article about a kind of British and empire military formation/unit named 'Field Ambulance foo'; it is not about a piece of equipment which is what this category is about. So this article would never go into such a category and the category would have to be named something like Field Ambulance (vehicle). Military ambulance would avoid this problem and match content in section 'Military use' in article Ambulance Further thought might come up with a name that could be inclusive of vehicles, helicopters and ships serving military medical purposes if that is desirable. Hmains (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2013 (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:Drug addiction
- 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Drug addiction redirects to Substance dependence. I understand there may be differences, but I don't think we have different articles on various aspects of dependence and addiction. JFH (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—from a medical classification point of view, both terms end up in the same place in DSM and ICD. I can't think of any reason to keep them separate. Of course, there should be a category redirect as a result of the merge. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2013 (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:Foster the 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: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per long-standing precedent that eponymous categories should contain a handful of related yet various topics before such categorization is needed and per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:50, 18 July 2013 (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.