Misplaced Pages

:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 8: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:50, 9 November 2006 editBrookie (talk | contribs)39,736 edits →Category:Female life peers: Keep← Previous edit Revision as of 20:15, 9 November 2006 edit undoNonomy (talk | contribs)556 edits →Category:Female life peersNext edit →
(8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 34: Line 34:
{{lc|Female life peers}}<br/> {{lc|Female life peers}}<br/>
'''Delete''' An ever higher proportion of life peers are female and their gender is of little relevance to their work. Life peers are appointed (officially in any case) for their expertise in various areas of public life, and men and women have the same duties. ] 20:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC) '''Delete''' An ever higher proportion of life peers are female and their gender is of little relevance to their work. Life peers are appointed (officially in any case) for their expertise in various areas of public life, and men and women have the same duties. ] 20:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
:If the nomination is good faith, then we should also upmerge all the entirely-male categories of peers, to ]: :''If the nomination is good faith, then we should also upmerge all the entirely-male categories of peers, to ]. (comment by ])'' ]'s riduculous attempt to conflate this nomination with her nomination of some fundamentally different categories, which I have seperated out). For avoidance of doubt I am completely gender neutral and call of ] to be pre-emptively blocked. ] 20:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)]
::The above is a cynical bad faith attempt by ] to conflate the discussion of categories of totally different types. Therefore I have separated the two discussions and restored the two votes below to the proper discussion. ] 20:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
⚫ *'''Delete''', don't cat by gender here. ] 09:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
⚫ *'''Delete''' per nom. ] 13:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

====Peers by type====
:*{{cl|British barons}} :*{{cl|British barons}}
:* {{cl|British earls}} :* {{cl|British earls}}
Line 45: Line 50:
:I assume ], and trust that the nominator will suport the deletion of these categories too. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 15:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC) :I assume ], and trust that the nominator will suport the deletion of these categories too. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 15:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
::Note: Representaive peers were peers from Ireland and Scotland elected to sit in the ] after the Acts of Union; they were all hereditary, and hence entirely male. Likewise, the perrs of England (i.e. pre-1707) were all male, as were the 1707-1801 ]. If I have missed any other all-male categories, I trust that soneone else ill add them to this CFD. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 15:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC) ::Note: Representaive peers were peers from Ireland and Scotland elected to sit in the ] after the Acts of Union; they were all hereditary, and hence entirely male. Likewise, the perrs of England (i.e. pre-1707) were all male, as were the 1707-1801 ]. If I have missed any other all-male categories, I trust that soneone else ill add them to this CFD. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 15:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
⚫ *'''Delete''', don't cat by gender here. ] 09:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
⚫ *'''Delete''' per nom. ] 13:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong keep''': the nominator should have read ], which is pertinent for several reasons, and should also have checked some figures. *'''Strong keep''': the nominator should have read ], which is pertinent for several reasons, and should also have checked some figures.
**With one or two exceptions, there have been ''no'' female hereditary peers, so this category is effectively a cat for ''all'' female peers. It is not a "current peers" category. **With one or two exceptions, there have been ''no'' female hereditary peers, so this category is effectively a cat for ''all'' female peers. It is not a "current peers" category.
Line 72: Line 75:
*'''KEEP''' of course, and look, some of the the usual suspects are here calling for the delete despite the fact that consensus on the issue of categorizing female politicians by sex has been reached. I do try to assume good faith in circumstances like this of course, but it gets more and more difficult when there are these constant backdoor attempts to get around consensus through the CfD process. ] 16:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC) *'''KEEP''' of course, and look, some of the the usual suspects are here calling for the delete despite the fact that consensus on the issue of categorizing female politicians by sex has been reached. I do try to assume good faith in circumstances like this of course, but it gets more and more difficult when there are these constant backdoor attempts to get around consensus through the CfD process. ] 16:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - of course - useful analysis ] ] 17:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''' - of course - useful analysis ] ] 17:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''This is a cynical use of ''bad faith'' tactics''' BrownHairedGirl must know perfectly well that these additional categories are not comparable. It appears that her only concern is to get her own way. I have separately these completely non-analogous cateogories. These '''peers by degree''' categories are in any case '''not single sex''' as they can be used for female peers in their own right. (Queen Victoria thought a female who held a dukedom in her own right was a duke, not a duchess.)] 20:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' the peers by degree categories of course. The comparable male category is ''indisputably'' ]. I have separated the two discussions as ]'s manipulativeness is totally out of order. ] 20:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


====Category:American punk musicians==== ====Category:American punk musicians====

Revision as of 20:15, 9 November 2006

< November 7 November 9 >

November 8

Category:National emblems of Argentina

Category:National emblems of the Republic of Ireland

Category:National emblems of Japan

Category:National emblems of the United States

Rename all to match the other subcategories of Category:National symbols by nationality. Metthurst 23:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:UK Discrimination law

Category:UK Discrimination law to Category:Discrimination law in the United Kingdom

Category:Faculty of Furman University

Rename to Category:Furman University faculty, convention of Category:Faculty by university in the United States. -- ProveIt 21:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Female life peers

Category:Female life peers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete An ever higher proportion of life peers are female and their gender is of little relevance to their work. Life peers are appointed (officially in any case) for their expertise in various areas of public life, and men and women have the same duties. Nonomy 20:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If the nomination is good faith, then we should also upmerge all the entirely-male categories of peers, to Category:Peers. (comment by User:BrownHairedGirl)
The above is a cynical bad faith attempt by User:BrownHairedGirl to conflate the discussion of categories of totally different types. Therefore I have separated the two discussions and restored the two votes below to the proper discussion. Nonomy 20:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Peers by type

I assume good faith, and trust that the nominator will suport the deletion of these categories too. --BrownHairedGirl 15:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: Representaive peers were peers from Ireland and Scotland elected to sit in the House of Lords after the Acts of Union; they were all hereditary, and hence entirely male. Likewise, the perrs of England (i.e. pre-1707) were all male, as were the 1707-1801 Category:Peers of Great Britain. If I have missed any other all-male categories, I trust that soneone else ill add them to this CFD. --BrownHairedGirl 15:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep: the nominator should have read Misplaced Pages:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Other_considerations, which is pertinent for several reasons, and should also have checked some figures.
    • With one or two exceptions, there have been no female hereditary peers, so this category is effectively a cat for all female peers. It is not a "current peers" category.
    • Women form a small minority of current life peers, and in any case this is a historical category: it includes both past and present life peers. It woukd also have helped for the nominator to have checked some figures.
    • There has been a House of Lords for nearly 1000 years, but women have been in a tiny minority until the last few decades, and are still outnumbered by 4.5:1.The House of Lords has changed in the last few decades from being entirely male, but as of this month women still number only 142 out of 609 peers (i.e. 22%).
    • The nominator's argument that peers are appointed solely on their merits is confounded by the massive gender bias in such appointments: the current balance of life peers is 469 men to 139 women. Whilst a peer's duties are theoretically gender-blind, to suggest that it has "little relevance to their work" is a very controversial POV (many issues such as childcare receive much more attention from omen politicians than from men).
    • All the major political parties are working hard to increase the nunber of women in Parliament, so they clearly disagree with the premise of this nomination. It would be an outrageous act of sexism for wikipedia to delete the category because a few editors reject the assesment of all the major poiltical parties in the UK: that gender does matter in politics, and that the current gender imbalance is so thoroughly unacceptable and so deeply ingrained that they have to change their rules and/or procedures to try to achieve some balance.
    • Please note too that the major commerical guide to parliament, VacherDods, categorises peers by gender. So does parliament.
    • Some figures for comparison:
  • I have therefore nominated for upmerging all the all-male categories: let's see whether this gender-blindness cuts both ways.

--BrownHairedGirl 15:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, don't merge, don't delete, do read WP:POINT. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 16:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP of course, and look, some of the the usual suspects are here calling for the delete despite the fact that consensus on the issue of categorizing female politicians by sex has been reached. I do try to assume good faith in circumstances like this of course, but it gets more and more difficult when there are these constant backdoor attempts to get around consensus through the CfD process. Otto4711 16:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - of course - useful analysis Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! 17:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a cynical use of bad faith tactics BrownHairedGirl must know perfectly well that these additional categories are not comparable. It appears that her only concern is to get her own way. I have separately these completely non-analogous cateogories. These peers by degree categories are in any case not single sex as they can be used for female peers in their own right. (Queen Victoria thought a female who held a dukedom in her own right was a duke, not a duchess.)Nonomy 20:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the peers by degree categories of course. The comparable male category is indisputably Category:Male life peers. I have separated the two discussions as BrownHairedGirl's manipulativeness is totally out of order. Nonomy 20:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:American punk musicians

Category:American punk musicians by instrument

Category:Canadian punk musicians

The above three categories do not match the top category (Category:Punk rock musicians) the article punk rock or the other subcategories.

Piccadilly 16:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Rename all for consistency within Category:Punk rock musicians by nationality and between punk rock articles on WP. Prolog 22:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Rename per above. Cbrown1023 22:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:People from Richmond

Rename to Category:People from Richmond upon Thames to match Richmond upon Thames per June 21 discussion. -- ProveIt 16:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:People from Kingston

Rename to Category:People from Kingston upon Thames, to match Kingston upon Thames per June 21 discussion. -- ProveIt 16:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Turkish saints

Delete, All of these saints are Byzantine saints, the name Turkish saints is incorrect. Even a category Saints from the territory of modern Turkey would be redundant.--Eupator 16:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, i.e. move all to Category:Byzantine saints. Strictly speaking, we may be dealing here with saints who are even older than what is conventionally called "Byzantium" in the political sense (pre-4th century AD), but their Late Roman cultural sphere is at least closely continuous with that of Byzantium (same culture, same ethnicities, same languages, same empire), so that any element of anachronism is far less severe if we put them there than if we put them into "Turkish". Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per above. (i have no idea what the creator had in mind...). Hectorian 21:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Cbrown1023 22:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. All these saints predate the Turkish conquest of Anatolia and can't be said to be Turkish by any reasonable definition. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Strongest keep. I'm the creator. I created it specifically because Category:Byzantine saints isn't appropriate for all the people therein (I created that category too, and most of the others in Category:Saints by country). According to my dictionary "Turkish" refers to someone from Turkey (Kurds, Jews, Greeks, etc), as well as someone who is ethnically a Turk. I created this cat for consistancy with the other subcats there; all the others are used for both saints from that modern country, and from the territory that existed there beforehad (for instance Gaulish saints go in Category:French saints; Dalmatian saints go in Category:Croatian saints, saints from the colonial US go in category:American saints; etc.). I knew this was going to throw some people for a loop, and I brought it up at the Saints wikiproject, but no one commented. Initially I created the Byzantine saints category to fit all those saints who lived in what is now Turkey (and it is a lot of them), but that was unsatisfactory for several reasons. First, it should also include individuals from what is now Greece, which would be redundant; additionally the Byzantine Empire included parts of the Middle East, North Africa, and Eastern Europe. What we really needed was a category specifically for those people who lived specifically in the area we now call Turkey. Finally, and most importantly, many of those people lived before or after the Byzantine Empire. So I finally settled on just being consistant with the other Saints by country cats, and explaining who should be included in the summary at the top.
My final point is, whether or not you agree that all those people now in the category, there are in fact a few saints from the modern Turkey (mostly Eastern Orthodox; there's still a Patriarch of Constantinople, remember). It would be inappropriate to delete the category because we can't agree on who else should go in there with them. So whatever is done, do not delete the category.--Cúchullain /c 23:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment That other categorizations are wrong seems to me a very inappropriate criterion for categorizing other articles wrongly. If Dalmatian and Gaulish saints are incorrectly made Croatian and French, then that should be fixed. But these are different situations. We do not have modern descendants of the ethnic groups affected who would object strongly, as ethnic Greeks would to being labeled as Turks. (Residents of the American colonies were Americans regardless.)
However, Category:Byzantine saints is plainly inappropriate too. Fact is, nationality is a slippery concept in ancient times before the rise of the modern nation-state, and especially within the territory of a multi-ethnic, multi-national empire such as the Roman Empire. For antiquity, it might therefore be better to identify by region rather than nationality. I suggest Category:Anatolian saints for those resident in Anatolia but prior to the misnamed "Byzantine Empire".
I believe there may be a few Turkish saints, martyrs of their post-WWI ethnic cleansings perhaps, but unless we actually have any articles on them my delete vote above stands. Those saints I know of in Turkish territory were not residents of modern Turkey, but of the Ottoman Empire. If we currently have any articles that fit, I would therefore change my vote to Rename Category:Ottoman saints. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Renaming to Anatolian saints is acceptable to me for most of the articles currently there (that's basically what I was going for anyway, though part of Constantinople is in European Turkey and not Anatolia, I think this is probably minor). The Ottoman category would face the same problem Byzantine saints has (or Ancient Roman saints for that matter) in that the Ottoman Empire was really frickin' big; at any rate Ottoman saints from what is now Turkey could just go in the Anatolian saints cat with the others. I would like to know, however, what we do for other categories about people from the country of Turkey. Are they generally sorted by ethnic group rather than nationality?--Cúchullain /c 00:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure. On reflection, I think what we really need to do is to look at each case individually and categorize them according to whatever consensus we can find in reliable sources. For example, I don't think you'll find anything at all in any acceptable source that says St. Basil of Caesarea (for instance) was "Turkish". I could say the same about hundreds of early saints from Asia Minor, not even excluding St. Paul. (Born in Tarsus, now in Turkey.)
On the other hand, look at St. Irenaeus of Lyons. He's categorized under both Category:French saints -- which is where Lugdnunm (Lyons) is now located -- and under Category:Greek saints as he was born in Smyrna -- now İzmir, and in Turkey, but a Ionian city that had been primarily Greek for a thousand years before he was born. As bishop of Lyons he probably spoke the local Gaulish Latin dialect in daily speech; certainly he wrote in Greek. Nothing French there, except that France is certainly proud to consider him her own. Even though "French saint" isn't particularly applicable, it seems to me that there's nothing wrong with placing him there. Does it seem even remotely useful to categorize him as Turkish ?
Or as long as we're on French saints, look at St. Denis. Born in Italy (same then as now, understood broadly as the region and not the modern nation-state) he was bishop of the Parisii, a Gaulish tribe that lived at Lutetia, which later was renamed for its inhabitants. He's categorized as a French saint, but to not do so would make no sense as he's considered the patron saint of France, a polity not to be founded until the invasions of the Germanic Frankish tribes. One could justify calling him an Italian saint, but it doesn't seem to make sense at first glance.
So I think it sometimes makes sense to categorize historical saints according to the political body now occupying the territory where they once lived, but not always. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Agree with Csernica. I have not much of a problem with anachronistic categorizations in cases where there is at least a strong element of cultural continuity between the historical political/ethnic/geographic units and the modern ones. With Anatolia/Turkey, this element is missing. As for parallels in other categories: Look at Category:Turkish people and its subcats, I don't see any parallel case there. We certainly don't have Homer under Category:Turkish poets. As for Cuchullain's insistence on having a category corresponding to the geographical unit that is today Turkey: well, why should we need one? I don't really see why "people from the territory that is today Turkey", or "people from in and around Anatolia" would be a particularly interesting categorisation for people from late antiquity anyway. But I won't strongly object if people really want Category:Saints from Anatolia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Vijay's films

Delete, and permanently block Category:Films by actor. Kill it now, before it spreads. -- ProveIt 16:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Hillsong - Live praise & worship albums

Merge into Category:Hillsong albums, convention of Category:Albums by artist. -- ProveIt 15:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This category is for all of Hillsong's albums in the Live Praise and Worship Series, and that is how it is catergorised on their website Mover85 05:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Television shows in the Philippines

Category:Television shows in the Philippines into Category:Filipino television series

Category:Catalan-speaking countries

Category:Catalan-speaking countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. During a previous debate it was decided to delete Category:Romanian-speaking countries, partly since it only contained (and only could contain) two articles. A number of editors pointed out Category:Catalan-speaking countries only has one entry, so this should also be deleted. the wub "?!" 10:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Heteroscelus

Category:Heteroscelus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, Genus has been merged into Tringa, see there. Dysmorodrepanis 04:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:World of Warcraft classes

I don't think this will be controversial but I an not sure it could fit speedy delete. This category did have articles in it a long time ago but they were all merged into a single article. So the category does't make sense anymore. Delete -- lucasbfr 03:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Things named for Magellan

Delete, fun and interesting, but still trivia, should be a list in the Ferdinand Magellan article. -- ProveIt 00:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)