Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 30



FC Omniworld and Almere City FC

 * 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) 21:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:FC Omniworld players to Category:Almere City FC players
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge - so here we have two categories for one team which simply changed its name in 2010 from FC Omniworld to Almere City FC. There is no need for two categories, I propose merging them both to as that is the current name of the club, and we do not keep 'historical' categories when clubs change their names. GiantSnowman 17:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge If it is a single team, it should have a single category, based on its present name. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * 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:Men sociologists

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting men sociologists


 * Nominator's rationale: Recently created, as a reaction to "Women sociologists" which has also been put up for deletion. While the subject of women in sociology is notable and has been covered in multiple RS, including specific books, conferences, task forces, and even societies dedicated to this issue, the issue of "male sociologists" has not been studied in the same way, and when studied it seems usually to be in comparison to women sociologists. As such, I think this one per WP:EGRS where there isn't a need to create a male-specific category. Keeping the women-specific cat is sufficient here. Note: this can be contrasted with the big debate at, where evidence was brought forth that there are books and courses and studies that look in detail at this issue. For sociology, most of the sources I looked at that referenced "male sociologists" were either doing so in passing, or doing so within the context of studying women in sociology or the sciences more generally. These sorts of things are always case by case, but in this particular case I think the sourcing for having a "Men sociologists" category isn't there. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, assuming that the decision on Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 29 is to keep. Delete otherwise. The relevant guideline is WP:Cat/gender, which says a gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic. There are two general cases where it would be appropriate:
 * If it is unusual for a sociologist to be a woman, and thus a topic of special encyclopedic interest, Category:Women sociologists does not have to be balanced by Category:Men sociologists. That is not the case: a sociologist today is presumably as likely to be female as male.
 * If the contributions of women and men are typically treated separately, as in sports categories (e.g. Category:Male golfers, Category:Female golfers), gender has a specific relation to the topic and the two categories are appropriate.
 * At issue is whether the contributions of women to sociology are distinctive in nature compared to the contributions of men. Assuming they are, both Category:Women sociologists and Category:Men sociologists should be kept. A Google Books search for "male sociologist" gives the same number of results (228) as a search for "female sociologist" (231) after scrolling to the foot of both lists. There would clearly be ample sources to support a  article for either category. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced by those google book searches are significant. They only indicate that the term is used, not that "male sociologists" is a separate group that is studied in the same way "women sociologists" are. Are there any books written about the contributions of exclusively male sociologists? Are there societies devoted to advancing their causes? If not, then it is your typical lopsided cat, we have these all over, and there's nothing wrong with them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is worth reading WP:Cat/gender. It is short and explicit. If almost all articles in Category:sociologists are men, and there are just a few women, a lop-sided category may be justified because it is exceptional for a woman to be a sociologist. Otherwise, there should be subcategories for men and for women, or no breakdown at all. If being female affects the type of sociologist a person is, regardless of their area of study, not being female must also have an effect.


 * Copying from the first 2 pages of search results:
 * Male sociologists were expected to be abstract thinkers, capable of teaching both sexes. Academic positions were to be held by men...
 * the urban interests of the early Chicago male sociologists...
 * male colleagues who genuinely labored to understand society but were blinded by androcentric culture ...
 * While over thirty male sociologists in this cohort contributed "self-reports and sociological critiques of this school and era"...
 * the black male sociologists from the turn of the century to the 1940s embody ...
 * Park was one of the white male sociologists responsible for shaping sociology as an “academic and abstract science” ...
 * Many of the early University of Chicago male sociologists, including the founding chair, Albion Small, were committed...
 * Since male sociologists outnumbered feminist ones and same-sex correlation strongly influenced citation...
 * It was simply taken for granted that male sociologists were capable of representing women as well as their own sex...
 * while the male sociologists of the Chicago School are already recognized as the earliest and most powerful figures...
 * male sociologists, however, do not ask the questions that are interesting to feminists...
 * Most male sociologists are equally convinced that sex-role theories have had their day and are inadequate to the task...
 * Clearly many books contain assertions about the characteristics of male sociologists, or of specific groups of male sociologists, enough to populate a sizable article on the subject. If the sociologist's gender is relevant, it is equally relevant for men and women. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems odd that there is an insistence on opposing "male sociologists" to "feminsits" a seeming attempt to elide the fact that many female sociologists do not share the views and goals of feminists. Also, for what it is worth, a male can be a feminists. This suggests to me that the construct of "male sociologist" is not really worked out to really include all males in the profession, but as a counter to feminists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A couple of the quotes imply that a male sociologist cannot be a feminist. That seems to be a fairly standard view: a male can support feminist goals, but cannot himself be a feminist. I think the broader question is whether the typical male sociologist is likely to have the same perspective as the typical female sociologist. Some of the quotes are a bit sweeping, but they do show respectable sources saying male sociologists differ from other sociologists, which is plausible. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Close same as Category:Women sociologists. If we have that category, we should have this one. For example one thing that sociologist such as Tim B. Heaton study is marriage and family. It is hard to say that gender matters for females in that case but not males. Still, sociologists study a lot of things. I think we might be better off dividing sociologists by field of study than by gender. Still, we should do the same for males and females.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete While I know large number of Category:Women sociologists who work on topics of gender, I can only think of a few (less than a half dozen) Category:Men sociologists who work on topics of maleness, masculinity and gender studies. It's not uncommon to find these scholars in the disciplines of English, American Studies, Gender Studies and even History, it is just what I would call a very small category. Personally, my choice is to have a Category:Sociologists and Category:Sociologists of gender that would cover female sociologists who work on gender studies but I guess I need to post about that elsewhere. Newjerseyliz (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment As an aside, there is a paucity of categories in Category:Sociologists by field of research which should have dozens of categories for different subfields. It shows the lack of participants in WikiProject Sociology. As a sociologist, it is far important for male and female sociologists to be categorized by subdiscipline or subfield than by what sex they are. This is really an area that should be expanded and the Category:Sociologists by sex should be eliminated. Newjerseyliz (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * delete not a useful category for navigation or other purposes. Men's studies or masculinity studies scholars could have their own category based on what they study - not on their genders.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But the quotes above clearly tell us that men trying to pretend they speak for women is a construct of power, that they really speak as men no matter how much they pretend otherwise, and that until we call them on that we are continuing their ability to exercise that normative power. Having women and not men categorize treats men as normative and women as exceptions. This was the underlying reason for attack behind some of the gripes about Category:American female novelists. Men are being normalized by being treated as the default. I can come up with sociologists like Marie Cornwall, who have done work that really does not overtly relate to gender at all. If we accept that gender controls women's actions in sociology, than we must accept it is also controlling the actions of men.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I support John Pack Lambert's position. Again, the WP:Cat/gender guideline says that unless women form a very small minority of sociologists, which is not the case, there should either be subcategories for both men and women sociologists, or for neither. From the search results quoted above it is clear that some women, and a lesser number of men, consider that the fact a sociologist is male is relevant in evaluating their work. Gender intrudes into most areas of sociology including studies of class, labor, culture, ethnicity, health and so on. The gender of the sociologist may indeed affect their approach and perception. A reader may well be interested in a division of sociologists by gender. Separating out women sociologists but not men is certainly wrong, Aymatth2 (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I also think "women sociologists" whould be deleted but that is another debate.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think they should be the same debate though. We really should decide the issue jointly, even if we do not decide it the same for both.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Both - It seems to me that having these paired categories is the natural conclusion of a sort of evolutionary process during which having Category:Women sociologists as the only gendered sub-cat was in essence a transitional phase. Btw, I don't think it's necessary or appropriate to invoke a term like "controlling" when considering the issue of gender, any more than a person's nationality or ethnicity or religion is "controlling". That is far too strong a term. The term I would use is "influential" or perhaps "highly influential". Cgingold (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we should go by sources; we were able to find many sources, associations, conferences, anthologies, studies, etc that specifically look at women sociologists, but weren't able to find the same for male sociologists, esp not in the same level of detail. I dont' have any specific opinion on whether being gender X changes your sociology work, but the point is, the outside world has noticed and written a fair bit about women sociologists, but much less so about men sociologists. This obtains in many fields. There's no requirement for matching here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But people identified more sources that mentioned male sociologists, and many of these argue that males have normalized the male view in sociology, and that if we are to treat female as distinct and males as normal, we will be guilty of this same normalization. If anywhere are we getting into a place where our actions can be seen as advocating normalization, it is in classifying sociologists. Some of the arguments in this discussion really sound like "men are normal, women are the exception."John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * 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:Pakistani American films

 * 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) 21:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Pakistani American films to Category:Pakistani-American films
 * Nominator's rationale: To have consistency with other subcategories under Category:Asian-American films, where they all have a dash between "X" and "American".  Mar4d  ( talk ) 13:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * 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:Austrian Holocaust Memorial Award recipients

 * 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) 21:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting austrian holocaust memorial award recipients


 * Nominator's rationale: This is another award recipients category where having the award is not generally what the person is notable for (i.e. not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the person). This category also places an article about a Synagogue in Category:People by status. For info: There is a list at Austrian Holocaust Memorial Award. DexDor (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a run of the mill award. It may be notable enough for an article, but it is not defining of those who have received it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -- another unnecessary category for a minor award. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * 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:Military equipment by conflict

 * 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) 21:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Military equipment by conflict to Category:Military equipment by war
 * Nominator's rationale: Consistency of naming - the relevant parent category is Category:Categories by war and most of the child cats use the word "war" rather than "conflict". Note: This nomination is not intended to be about the details of how this category is used and hence how it relates to the by-period category. DexDor (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * 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.