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.
All of Category:Kenyan businesswomen's sibling categories in Category:Women in business by nationality are, for the record, named in the "Nationality women in business" format rather than the "Nationality businesswomen" one. The article in question should definitely be merged into that category, and the one that's been nominated here should be deleted, but the target category should be renamed as suggested by Marcocapelle. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no issue with the one article being put in the businesswomen category. To rename that category it should be nominated so that there can be proper notification.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:14, 14 August 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.
Propose renaming Category:Places of Interest in the United Kingdom to Category:Lists of places of interest in the United Kingdom
Nominator's rationale: Title that more accurately reflects the category text and current contents - otherwise articles about specific places are likely to be (incorrectly) placed in this category. Alternatively, this could be renamed to Category:Lists of visitor attractions in the United Kingdom (and hence placed under Category:Visitor attractions in the United Kingdom). DexDor(talk)22:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support and also fine with alternative. Since everything in here is a list, this is just a truth in advertising change to reflect the actual contents. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Lists of tourist attractions in the United Kingdom. Although this could have been speedily nominated for renaming WP:C2C to Category:Lists of visitor attractions in the United Kingdom, following the pattern in Category:Lists of visitor attractions by country, the dominant term used in Britain is "tourist attraction". A Google search for either term shows that both are recognised and used in the UK, but this Ngram shows that "tourist attraction" is used in books over twenty times more. It's about the same whether American or British English is specified. I have suggested a large-scale renaming of categories at Category talk:Visitor attractions, and notified WikiProject Tourism. – FayenaticLondon11:13, 30 July 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.
Support This is a relic of the complex history of these categories, where for about 7 years these were the only by gender acting categories allowed in Wikipedia because of various past policies. The only reason they have not been renamed before is that it takes more effort than anyone has wanted to expend.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 28 July 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 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.
Keep & Populate It's fine to have a template and a category and, if this was populated, it looks perfectly viable. (I'm happy to handle adding the articles for the closing admin but don't want to shift the category mid-nomination.)RevelationDirect (talk) 11:59, 27 July 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 These topics are only very very loosely connected. Moreover, the whole idea of categorizing women through the job of their male spouse is borderline insulting. Pichpich (talk) 11:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I notice that the description of the category says "Only articles about those for whom this is a defining characteristic should be placed in this category". So does that suggest that it is a category for articles about women who are only famous for who they are/were dating......? Because in that case surely they shouldn't have articles anyway..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. Victoria Beckham is a WAG. It's a defining feature of Victoria Beckham's life, but she was famous before she became one and is still famous independently of her husband, but is still described as a WAG. Would she be as famous/successful/etc now if she wasn't married to David Beckham? Many WAGs are so famous that they are notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. Many WAGs go on to find notability in other areas. Coleen Rooney is a classic example. Became famous through her WAGdom, and went on to have a media career. –anemoneprojectors– 14:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – it has been discussed many times. Here in the UK the newspapers and TV stations (all, not just the tabloid ones) are obsessed with such trivia, like it or not. Oculi (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- We have discussed this several times before. One one occasion, the category was called "WAGs" or "Footballers' WAGs", which was objectionable because it is an abbreviation (which we do not usally allow for categories). Many footballers come from less well off backgrounds, but become fabulously wealthy due to the high pay they get in the Premier League. Their WAGs get to spend some of this and the tabloid press gives a lot of coverage to their antics. Some become independently notable; others had that already. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We categorize by how people are categorized in reliable and verifiable sources, and these sources consistently describe these individuals based on their relationships as wives and girlfriends. Alansohn (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Being a FWAG is not a claim of notability in and of itself. A woman for whom "FWAG" was the crux of her notability would not get into Wikipedia at all, and a woman who had a legitimate claim of notability besides that — e.g. as an actress, a Spice Girl, or an athlete in another sport — would get into Wikipedia on that achievement rather than her FWAGness. So this isn't a defining characteristic in and of itself: it doesn't get a person into Wikipedia as a thing in its own right — and for anybody who does get into Wikipedia for other things besides being a FWAG, it's just an extra biographical detail and not a core part of her notability. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have misunderstood the concept of "defining characteristic" - it doesn't really have anything to do with notability. Being born in 1961 is a defining characteristic, but that doesn't mean that everyone born in 1961 is notable. StAnselm (talk) 21:25, 1 August 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.
Oppose per Tim! above. The convention is plural within e.g Category:Monsters as well as a sci-fi categories e.g. Category:Cylons. I acknowledge the nominator's observations above, but do not find them persuasive for renaming the category. – FayenaticLondon21:09, 8 August 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.
Comment shouldn't "predynastic Egypt" be a subcategory of prehistoric Egypt? Dynasty 0, the Scorpion kings, and the origin of Egyptian writing would make it the transition between non-literate period and the literate period (ie. the bridge between prehistory and history, if you use the development of writing as the transition point) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support nomination, I think making it a subcategory would be too much detail for such an ancient period that we do not know a lot about. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a well understood period in Egyptology. IN the context of Egypt, where there is written history so far back, prehisotric is a less useful term, because its meaning varies so much from place to place according to when hisotry begins: in Egypt, c3000 BC; Greece about 700 BC; Rome about the same; England 43AD Roman invasion; SCotland about 500 AD; some Scandinavian and estern European countries 1000 AD; America after 1500 AD. If anything it is the rename of Predynastic Egypt to prehistoric, which was mistaken and should be reveresed. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This question was discussed at Talk:Prehistoric Egypt#Predynastic Period. My understanding is that the word "predynastic" applies to the periods before the unification of Egypt, and its applicability kind of fades out as one looks farther back. It always applies to the Naqada periods and it may sometimes be applied to the early Neolithic cultures like the Badarian and even Merimde, but it's never used for the Mesolithic or Paleolithic. I'm not happy with the lack of an article for predynastic Egypt, but I can see why Dbachmann didn't want to lump the Paleolithic and Mesolithic under that title. Perhaps the article and category can be split? A. Parrot (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The Predynastic period is a specific and well-known period. The British Museum defines it as the late Neolithic period which began in the sixth millennium BC, and ended with the unification of Egypt. It even devides it into 2 eras; that is the Naqada I period (4000-3500 BC) and the Naqada II period (3500-3100 BC) [1]. Some other academics call it Dynasty 0 [2]. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that there's no hard beginning for the Predynastic. Some people apply the term as far back as the 6th millennium BC, when Egypt entered the Neolithic. Other definitions focus solely on the Naqada culture from 4000 to 3000 BC (as well as the cultures in Lower Egypt from the same period). A. Parrot (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with A. Parrot. The Met Museum, for instance, limits it between c4500 and 3100 BC. That limitation coincides with the emergence of the Merimde and the Badarian cultures but excludes the Faiyum A culture (c6000 BC). -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From the earlier comments in this discussion, it seems like the concept of "Predynastic" is subjective, which is a new argument in favor of the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 3 August 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.
Weak oppose to this additional upmerge, since there are apparently 9 single articles in this category for which Protestant clergy is more specific than Christian clergy. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: I don't understand the latter remark. Do you mean that 'clergy' should not be in the tree of 'religious leaders'? E.g. should Roman Catholic clergy not be in the tree of Christian religious leaders because it may contain ordained Roman Catholic clergy who are not in leadership roles? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Clergy categories contain predominantly religious leaders, so they should be in the tree of religious leaders per WP:SUBCAT. In my view they should be merged. Another editor objected to this because "clergy" also covers deacons (ordained non leaders); see the discussion below the precedents linked above. Merging the levels for Clergy and Religious leaders would need a full discussion, as you and I recently noted on the Speedy page.[3] I will need to set time aside to build that nomination. In the meantime, there are now several small nominations such as this one which go in the other direction, so I think these should be put out of the way first. – FayenaticLondon19:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged: Just to be sure, I assume this alternative refers to the later nomination by Peterkingiron, right? So the alternative is to rename Category:Scottish Protestant ministers and clergy to Category:Scottish Protestant clergy. Weak oppose to removing "ministers" from the category name, since the term "clergy" isn't that common in Calvinist Protestantism (which Scottish Protestantism largely belongs to), while "ministers" is the common term here. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly oppose "Protestant clergy" since all other Protestant clergy categories have already been renamed (to Protestant religious leaders); see link above to list of precedent CfDs. – FayenaticLondon21:15, 8 August 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.
Propose deletingCategory:Academic journals published in Burma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category with one member, without any potential for growth (and, of course, misnamed as the correct country name is Myanmar). Randykitty (talk) 06:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No, the country article is at Burma, so that should be used for the category. What does "without any potential for growth" mean? That there will never be any more academic journals published in the country? StAnselm (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It means that at this time, there are no other notable journals discernible. Note that the one entry in this cat is of doubtful notability and that Googling the two other Myanmar journals used in the article as references doesn't even render a functional website or any other meaningful hits (not even library catalogs). So while we cannot exclude that some of these may become notable in future or that still-to-be-established journals may eventually become notable, we have nothing to put in this cat at this very moment. Thanks for the note about "Burma", should have checked but since the country has been named "Myanmar" for decades now, I just assumed that that would be our article name. Note that most journals cannot be readily assigned to a country of publication (learned society in one country -or international-, publisher in another country -often with multiple locations in multiple countries-, editor-in-chief in yet another country, etc etc). --Randykitty (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It now contains two journals of doubtful notability and one redirect. In general, the country of publication is not really a defining characteristic of a journal, its subject matter is what defines it. It would not even be correct to call the current cat "Academic journals about Burma", because the original entry in this cat (Myanmar Medical Journal) is about medicine and even though it says it has an emphasis on medicine as relevant to Myanmar, articles most of the time cover more general topics (e.g., "Novel actions of leptin", "Unruptured Ovarian Ectopic Pregnancy", "Rectus Sheath Haematoma after Laparotomy", etc). --Randykitty (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- WP decided a lonmg time ago that articles should be at Burma, even though the country likes to call itself Myanmar. WE also decided that the present Republic of China should have its common name of Taiwan. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Conventional WP tests for notability preclude a more accurate assessment of notability when one considers that most Burmese academic research is not readily available online, owing to its decades mired in economic and academic isolation. The country produces several academic journals, including the state-published Myanmar Journal of Medical Research, which serve as the country's primary platforms for publishing domestic research findings. There are library holdings for Burma Medical Journal in countries outside Burma [4], before the journal was renamed. Agreed that other countries aside from the US and UK should be given separate cats. -Hintha(t) 01:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Now, it contains two (or three) articles. IMO, both article, JBRS and MMJ is clearly notable. Currently, almost all of of the books/journals published in Myanmar/Burma do not have an ISBN or ISSN, and only a few have websites. PhyoWP*click13:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The country of publication is notable to academic journals. Also, the country of publication was more notable in the past than it is now. Clearly we should add the Soviet Union, Germany and many other countries to the tree. This essentially is on its was to being a case of a large tree, so the Burma case will be allowed. The issue of whether the category should be Burma/Myanmar is distinct from whether we should have the category. The Burma/Myanmar debate should be carried out on a larger scale. It might be worth revisiting with the changes in Burma and a move towards a more Democratic government over the past 5 or so years, there may be a new consensus on what to call the country, but if there is (which I admit I still doubt), that would just lead to renaming, not deleting this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:20, 14 August 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.
Category:National Famous Historical and Cultural Cities in China
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.
Propose Deleting Category:National Famous Historical and Cultural Cities in China
Propose Deleting Category:National Garden Cities in China
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEFINING. These are official Chinese government awards for many large cities, including Beijing and Shanghai. There are no main articles for either category, Google references are scarce (at least in English), and the awards aren't even mentioned in the articles. This is similar to my earlier nomination of Category:Historical cities and towns in Russia. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:51, 27 July 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.