Category talk:British female MPs

Category:Female life peers is currently going through CfD. I acknowledge that this category might be somewhat more interesting than that for peers, and that it may be compatible with the current sub-catting of Category:British MPs currently taking place. However, it seems a bit premature and inconsistent to have this until the other CfD has been completed. Mtiedemann 11:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

However, I will refrain from adding any more female MPs to this category until the CfD on Category:Female life peers is complete. --BrownHairedGirl 11:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the alert. I wasn't aware that Category:Female life peers was going through CfD, or I would have held off creating this one.  As you can probably guess, I think that both should stay, and that this is a case where gendered sub-classification is appropriate provided that the female minority is also categorisied in the parent category: see my reply on the CfD entry.

Subcats by nation
I thought that the clear principle for categories by gender, ethnicity, etc was that they should not 'ghettoise' (my word) those people away from non-gender based categories or artificially split people. The new subcats for this category (by nation represented) is being used to split male from female MPs however.

When we had just British MPs and British female MPs, there was consensus that female MPs would be categorised in both, ie left in the parent category, as per MOS. Can we agree that this has to be done in this case too? Personally I believe the subcats to be redundant, female MPs can be in several relevant categories, but I propose an interim compromise. Mtiedemann 22:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What is "as per MOS"? --Mais oui! 22:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Dug out the reference from Categorization/Gender%2C_race_and_sexuality (not Manual of Style but in categorization policy, sorry):


 * Whenever possible, categories should not be gendered. A gender-specific category should only be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic. For example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed, but a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest. That category, however, 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 by default. Both male and female heads of government should continue to be filed in the appropriate gender-neutral role category (e.g. Presidents, Monarchs, Prime Ministers, Governors General.)

The key sentence is the last, that "Both male and female heads of government [or here MPs] should continue to be filed in the appropriate gender-neutral role category". There was reference to this above too. Mtiedemann 23:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Accepted: I am now in the process of restoring the gender-neutral cats. Nearly finished. --Mais oui! 06:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)