< February 5 February 7 >

February 6

Military historians by war

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 08:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: to clarify that these are historians who studied these conflicts, rather than being somehow involved in the war. The WWI and WWII categs are subcats of Category:Historiography of World War I and Category:Historiography of World War II respectively, so this matches that convention. 5 of the 11 subcats of Category:Military historians by war already use the "Historians of Foo War" format; this proposal would align the remaining 6 with that format.
(This arises out of a contested speedy, copied below). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of discussion at speedy
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:Order of the Colonial 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: delete. – Fayenatic London 20:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting Category:Order of the Colonial Empire
  • Propose Deleting Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of the Colonial Empire
Nominator's rationale:WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
The Order of the Colonial Empire was an award for residents of Portugal's colonial empire. The three articles we have listed are Mozambique Company (which makes sense although it's already well categorized), George V, and Prince George, Duke of Kent. I haven't found a source that says why two British royals received the award but neither is defined by Portugal's colonies. If we delete this category, the recipients will still be listed here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Mimich as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Portugal. – RevelationDirect (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Portuguese wikipedia says the canonical source of the recipient is here. You have to select between "cidadãos nacionais" (national citizens) or "cidadãos estrangeiros" (foreign citizens) on the bottom left menu. From a quick google search on a couple of recipients, it is a defining characteristic of Salazar, but not of Eça de Queiroz. Therefore, I'd rather have it kept.
Order of the Colonial Empire#Notable Recipients should be expanded. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply As the President and Prime Minister of Portugal, Salazar was either awarded or gave himself 4 official medals and doesn't seem to have ever lived in a Portuguese colony. We obviously look at WP:DEFINING differently. (We agree on expanding Order of the Colonial Empire#Notable Recipients though; I added both articles you mentioned.) RevelationDirect (talk) 12:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I actually have no idea if this award would be defining for the colonial people for which it was intended. We don't have any of those articles to look at, either because the recipients are not notable or because African biographies are under-represented in Wikipedia. But, ultimately, categories are designed to aid navigation and readers clicking on this one would probably be looking for biographies of people in Africa or Asia but all they would find today would be high-ranking Europeans. (If and when these other biography articles show up, that would be a good point to re-evaluate.)RevelationDirect (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find that it was predominantly aimed at Portuguese people serving in the colonies, not people from the colonial territories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:08, 6 February 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:Failed DYK nominations

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 in reverse of nomination and then delete redundant category, (merge and deletion were completed prior to this non-admin closure).--John Cline (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Two categories that seem to cover the exact same topic. No objection to reverse merging. Pppery 21:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If anything, the merge should be the other way around: Failed DYK nominations is the category currently being used by automated software and various templates, while DYK/Unsuccessful nominations hasn't been used for nearly four years. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there isn't anything to merge at this point. The individual templates had also been in the month categories, and I've adjusted the originals so they no longer specify the DYK/Unsuccessful nominations category, just the month involved (e.g., Category:Failed DYK nominations from February 2013‎). And the set of months under DYK/Unsuccessful nominations, between 2011 and 2013, are all also in Failed DYK nominations, which goes from 2011 to the present day. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very good information BlueMoonset, your efforts serve many and are well appreciated. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - considering BlueMoonset's fine work in this discussion, there truly is nothing left to merge. As the editor who created Category:DYK/Unsuccessful nominations, I am not against closing this discussion early and affirm the category is ready for deletion now. Accordingly, I have added ((db-g7)) to the category in hopes of further hastening this discussion's close.--John Cline (talk) 05:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge. Just cleans up the old mess of changing the category without renaming it properly. ~ Rob13Talk 13:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge per the above argument. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:35, 7 February 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:Leap years

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 on new sub-cat Category:Leap years in the Gregorian calendar; delete Category:Leap years, which I will merge to Category:Years. – Fayenatic London 08:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: (1) In which calendar? (Proleptic) Julian, (Proleptic) Gregorian. (2) Not a useful categorization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2016 December 31 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:40, 6 February 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:Presidential residences

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:Presidential palaces to Category:Presidential residences. – Fayenatic London 08:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems redundant to the much-more-populated Category:Presidential palaces pbp 16:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am now signing on to BHG's proposal to merge palaces to residences. pbp 17:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: Would you be adverse to the deletion of Category:Presidential palaces, with all the entries being reclassified as residences? All palaces are also residences. I'm not really seeing the need for TWO categories here; the only question is which one to keep. pbp 17:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@pbp I would strongly oppose deletion; if any action is taken, then it should be to merge, but I am not sure where I would stand on merger. If we have to keep only one category, then obviously we keep the more inclusive one. But it seems to me that while in some cases the label Presidential Palace is a mere terminological distinction, there are many other cases where the term is used to indicate either a former monarchical building or a new build in a monarchical style. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:33, 6 February 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.

"People from former country" versus "People of former 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: keep. A follow-up nomination is called for. – Fayenatic London 08:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: In Category:People by former country, there are 82 categories using "People of X", and only six using "People from X". These six, beginning with people, need to follow the mentioned majority style, as there are no difference whatsoever about subject (people of former countries). Zoupan 12:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But these are historical states and not current nationalities, and that is fundamentally different. There is not any "from" category in Category:People by nationality, except for the special Category:People from Georgia (country). An example where I think this style does a good job is Category:People of Nazi Germany, which not only sounds better, but is clearer than Category:People from Nazi Germany (the wording implies an exclusion of foreign-born people, and also implies expatriates) and Category:Nazi Germany people (implying Nazis?). Again, we are only talking about these six categories.--Zoupan 06:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for clarification, Category:People by nationality uses "from" very often lower in the tree where we have people from country subdivisions. I really don't think the two trees are fundamentally different, especially I think that the nominated categories should allow foreign-born people and expatriates. But in fact I could also very well live with using "of" or "in" in both trees, so I'm not going to oppose here. Things may settle out more clearly in future nominations. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, from current subdivisions. Yes, all-inclusion is what is intended, I just showed the implications of the different forms when we are speaking of former countries.--Zoupan 14:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How is "People of" not normal English? Judging by Gbooks hits, it is normal English. For example, "People from the Byzantine Empire" has 0 GBook hits, "People of the Byzantine Empire" has 5.--Zoupan 13:47, 9 February 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:Israeli stage designers

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) 05:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no Category:Stage designers, but there is Category:Scenic designers (see scenic design.). That seems to be the purpose of this category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:05, 6 February 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.

Some Indian male occupations

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 all except Category:Indian male fashion designers, for which I find no consensus, although I could not find the worldwide parent for male fashion designers mentioned by user:Johnpacklambert or implied by user:Lemongirl942. If that category is re-nominated then I suggest also nominating its other parent Category:Indian male designers, which was left out of this discussion. – Fayenatic London 15:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: per WP:CATGENDER, A gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic. That is not the case here: men have not been historically under-represented in these occupations, nor is there a particular male genre of doing these occupations because men differ from the norms of that occupation (because men predominate).
That is why none of these categories has a global parent: see the redlinks for C:Male television directors, C:Male television producers, C:Male film directors, C:Male cinematographers, C:Male filmmakers, C:Male contemporary artists, C:Male choreographers, C:Male television presenters, C:Male fashion designers, C:Male mountain climbers.
Each of the nominated categories has an equivalent "Indian female fooers" (or "Indian women fooers") counterpart: C:Indian female television producers, C:Indian female television directors, C:Indian female film directors, C:Indian female cinematographers, C:Indian female filmmakers, C:Indian female contemporary artists, C:Indian female choreographers, C:Indian female television presenters, C:Indian female fashion designers, C:Indian female mountain climbers.
However, per WP:CATGENDER, a female category does not need to be balanced with an equivalent female category (or vice versa) unless the profession is inherently segregated by gender, as with acting or some sports. None of these occupations is inherently segregated by gender, so the case for each gendered category must be made on its own merits. I am persinally unpersuaded on the merits of all the female categories, but that is a separate discussion, because the two do not have to be balanced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not trying to achieve any change, just articulating my position. The closing admin can take them for what its worth. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sure that the closing admin will be aware of WP:LOCALCON. I just think it's a pity that you are pursuing your view in a venue where policy requires that it be disregarded. That seems unhelpful to everyone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You clearly misunderstand: how often when one category of several similar ones are nominated and there are lots of comments along the lines of why is this category different from others not nominated; often times a closing admin recognizes the fundamental oddness of that and may infer that they stand or fall together and ought to be so grouped. Also, despite WP:CATGRS, these sorts of categories are created and defended, including female versions of these sorts of categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, I understand clearly. Such comparisons are often made, but in this case we have a guideline which has been stable for a decade, and stable in its insistence that such a comparison is not applicable between male and female categories. I accept that you do not support that guideline, but its stability affirms that it reflects a broad community consensus ... so unless and until it is changed, it should be applied here unless you have a rationale for why these categories represent an exception to the broad principle. And I see no claim from you that these categories represent an exceptional case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existence of a gender segregation in the field is not the only valid basis for a "female/women" gender category — in some fields, there's no segregation per se but women were historically rare enough in the field that their increasing participation has led to the publication of reliable source research into the significance of that fact. A "men/male" category should exist only in the case of a full-on segregation of genders — but a "women/female" category can exist if it satisfies either of those tests. So there are some occupations where a "women/female" category is justifiable but a "men/male" category isn't. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 22 February 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:Nikos Oikonomidis songs

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. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The artist is non-notable and the article about him has been deleted:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikos Oikonomidis (violinists). Sjö (talk) 05:55, 6 February 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:Chinese performing arts

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. – Fayenatic London 17:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: pointless subcategory with a single parent. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:20, 6 February 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:Women atheists

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, yet another extreme example of WP:OVERCAT, most of the people in this article are not notable for being atheist and for being women. They are either notable women who happen to be atheists or notable atheists who happen to be women. Whatever the case it would seem silly having similar categories such as Category:Women agnostics or Category:Women deists. We don't have any gender related categories pertaining to religons that I know of, expept for stuff such as nuns and monks which is gender based by structure as only men can become imams or monks and only women can become nuns in certain religions. Atheism of course has none of that. Yes there were some women who where vocal atheist and incorporated it in their activism for women's rights, but we already have Category:Atheist feminists which sums up those individuals (both women and non-women) nicely. Which ever way you cut it the category looks like clumping two unrelated facts together. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:31, 6 February 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.
More