Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 27



Category:Willy Moon

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting willy moon


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Articles on one song and one album. Nothing here that would warrant an eponymous category. Willy Moon is just as or even more effective. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 22:55, 27 November 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:Male sex organs

 * 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, retain as category redirect per similar discussion below. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Male sex organs to Category:Mammal male reproductive system
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Basically duplicates the target category, but the latter is more developed. Brandmeistertalk  20:15, 27 November 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:Married... with Children episodes

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting married... with children episodes


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single-item category with little to no chance of expansion. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:03, 27 November 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:90210 (TV series) episodes

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting 90210 (tv series) episodes


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single-item category with little to no likelihood of expansion. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:01, 27 November 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:Female sex organs

 * 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: Mege, retain as category redirect. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Female sex organs to Category:Mammal female reproductive system
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Looks like basically the same, but the target category seems to be more developed. Btw, there is also Category:Human female reproductive system. Brandmeistertalk  20:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. Would this be a good place to use a category redirect ? DexDor (talk) 07:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind. Brandmeistertalk  13:47, 29 November 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:Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip episodes

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting studio 60 on the sunset strip episodes


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single-entry category with no chance of expansion. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:59, 27 November 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:Microsoft women

 * 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. Based on the discussion comments, the contents are already in other categories in the correct trees so no upmerge is needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting microsoft women


 * Propose merge yahoo! women to


 * Nominator's rationale: Both of these are recently created, is a more or less a duplicate of, which is currently under discussion for deletion (trending towards merge). The sole contents of the Microsoft category are already classified correctly, for the Yahoo is probably safer to merge as I haven't checked to make sure they're all classified elsewhere in the yahoo tree. I think these cats should be deleted as there is nothing special or specific in terms of gender relations to working at Yahoo or Microsoft as a woman - 25% of Microsoft employees are women for example. Genderizing individual tech company employees is not needed, and these categories will have a tendency to ghettoize and violate the last-rung rule of WP:EGRS. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Note that Category:Microsoft women should be merged to Category:Microsoft people rather than deleted, because by time the CFD is closed its contents may no longer all be in the target category. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC) In this case, you already knew that Category:Microsoft woman employees was controversial, because you had participated in the discussion at CFD 2013 November 18. Instead of creating further categories of women-by-company only 6 days after participating in that discussion, you should have waited to see whether there was a consensus to keep this type of category. Your complaint that this would "lock down any development" is silly, for two reasons:
 * Merge both per nominator and per the arguments at CFD Nov 18 ... and WP:TROUT User:Ottawahitech for creating these categories while is under discussion.
 * I was summoned here by User:BrownHairedGirl and am surprised to find out I have unwittingly broken a wiki-rule, once again. Can you please point me to the wording that explains what I did wrong? - and please summon me again, since I do no follow cfd discussions on a regular basis. Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Just thought I would add that it is now November 29, and the other category mentioned above has been under discussion for 11 days, in effect allowing the nomintors of CfDs to lock down any development of related articles and categories while the (sometimes) endless discussions here go on and on... XOttawahitech (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * , there is nothing very complicated about this. It is a core policy that editorial decisions are made by consensus.  Where the consensus is clear, editors should work within that consensus or engage in discussion to change it.  Editors are also encouraged to be be bold, but not too bold. That means that if an edit turns out to be controversial, editors should discuss the issue and try to reach a consensus before repeating it. You can read about this principle in various locations, such as WP:EDITCONSENSUS, WP:BRD, and WP:BOLD.
 * There is no deadline. Waiting for a consensus to be reached is better than having the same issues revisited in multiple discussions
 * In the discussion at CFD 2013 November 18, the nominator's proposed merger is supported by 5 other editors, and opposed by none; it is therefore very unlikely that the category would be kept. You should have expected that these new categories would meet a similiar fate, and not wasted the time of other editors by creating them, unless there was a surprise outcome to the Nov 18 CFD. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) Ottawa, we're all volunteers here. When you start a whole new category scheme, of gender+employer, and then that scheme is nominated for deletion, my suggestion is you don't expand that scheme while the discussion in question is trending towards merge- it just means you're doing work that will be undone, and it means we need to do more work here to clean up the remnants. As you know, its trivial to create a category, but requires usually a week of discussion to delete them, so i'd also suggest you take time and care before cresting new categories, especially gendered ones, given that we have more restrictive guidelines around same and new gender-based schemes are regularly deleted here - that's why bhg trouted you. If that older discussion hasn't been closed its just because one of the volunteer closers hasn't gotten around to it; in this case several closers weighed in so they shouldn't really close it. While a category is under discussion you should feel free to add articles to it, but just accept that work may be undone if the cat is deleted. In addition, if you've started a new scheme, hold off on expanding that scheme with other similar categories once it's been nominated for discussion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * , I fully agree with Obi's comments. It's all about working together to try to avoid wasting anyone's time. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * do you also agree with Obi’s rationale calling for deletion of the parent category: because most employer categories aren't otherwise diffusable? XOttawahitech (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That discussion belongs at the CFD on that category. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge and Delete per nom. Splitting women out at the level of employers is a bad idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Besides, "Microsoft women" sounds a lot like Microsoft owns them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Just noting that the entries from Category:Microsoft woman employees were not merged (I think?) into this category as per Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_18. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The merge target at that discussion was, not .--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and arguments to do the same above. The remaining entries are already in the respective subcategories of Category:Microsoft people or Category:Yahoo! people. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 18:36, 9 January 2014 (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:Multiracial French

 * 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 19:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting multiracial french


 * Nominator's rationale: The articles in this category could be a member of Category:French people by FOO descent, and I don't see the need for creating a separate category like this. Should be deleted as overcategorization. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * delete per nom.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. We don't categorise by race. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete for lots of reasons 1-we do not categorize by race, 2-"multi-racial" means the people have more than one race, this is not clearly stated in many of these articles. Also, to say such we have to define race. Is the son of a Senegalese father and a Moroccan mother multi-racial or not? If the father had been ethnic French would the person still be multi-racial, if so, what race are Moroccans? We do not want to go there at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete racial category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete There's no "Multiracial American" or "Multiracial British" category. This is the only category of this kind on the entire site. No need for it. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 06:22, 5 December 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:Wikipedian Nightmare on Elm Street fans

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Wikipedian Nightmare on Elm Street fans to Category:Wikipedians interested in Nightmare on Elm Street
 * Nominator's rationale: Per the already established naming convention in Category:Wikipedians by interest in a film series. &oelig; &trade; 12:30, 27 November 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.

Categories: Centuries in England/Scotland/Great Britain

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:1st century BC in Great Britain to new categories:
 * Category:1st century BC in England & Category:1st century BC in Scotland
 * Nominator's rationale: Great Britain refers to the Kingdom of Great Britain from 1707 to 1801 (18th century) although 1801 is the first year of the United Kingdom. Hence the term "1st century BC in Great Britain" is anomalous. And "British Isles" is a prehistoric and geographic category. While Category:Centuries in Scotland extends back to Category:1st century in Scotland, Category:Centuries in England extends back to only Category:5th century in England, and suggests the creation of categories for England in the 4th to 1st Centuries also. There is a category Category:Roman Britain for the history of the period of the Roman Empire in Britain. Roman Britain from AD 43 to 410 was largely in England but sometimes extended to southern Scotland and Wales. Hugo999 (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. Why can't "Great Britain" just mean the geographic island of Great Britain? After all, the article Great Britain is about the island, not the Kingdom of Great Britain. The island of Great Britain existed in the 1st century BC. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * keep per GOF. Just put a headnote that GB means 'The island of GB'. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose there was no England in the 1st century BC, also the primary meaning of Great Britain is the island not the Kingdom. Tim! (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. The category is still a single “orphan” category to contain two articles about events which took place in England and Scotland, so could be contained in an extension of existing categories by century for England and Scotland. As for there being “no England in the 1st century BC”, Germany and Italy were not unified until the 19th century but are recognised as existing long before then. England was not unified until the 10th century; Scotland and Wales until the 13th century. Hugo999 (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * By that argument you could call this category 1st century BC in the United Kingdom as the territory of the UK extended to prior to its creation, however there is precedent that UK categories should not exist for the period before 1801, therefore England categories should not exist for a period prior to its existence. The intermediate categories could be called 1st century in Roman Britain etc. Tim! (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. Well if England did not exist until the 10th century (with the Kingdom of England) then articles and categories about Anglo-Saxon England from the 5th century nearly up to 1066 will have to be called something else. And there were parts of Britain which were not part of Roman Britain or Anglo-Saxon-notEngland (eg the Danelaw), so will there be a separate category for them as well? And the boundaries of Roman Britain and Anglo-Saxon England changed over time. What would (say) the “2nd century in Scotland” be renamed too?
 * Great Britain is a name which persists from pre-history to the present day for the whole period so any intermediate categories can be an x-th century in Great Britain category, with any sub-categories for specific nation stations that are useful. eg. x-th century in Danelaw. Tim! (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Articles relating to Anglo-Saxon England and the Danelaw are already seperated into subcategories of Category:Anglo-Saxon England and Category:Anglo-Norse England, and I do not see any need to separate the individual centuries categories into separate subcategories for Anglo-Saxon England and Anglo-Norse England. Re the use of “England” the category Category:7th century in England is just as meaningful as Category:7th century in Germany or Category:7th century in Italy; neither Germany or Italy were unified until the 19th century. Hugo999 (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Anglo-Saxon England is a term used to refer to Kingdoms such as Wessex (hence 7th century in England), but there is no equivalent term for Roman and pre-Roman times, Britain is invariably used. Tim! (talk) 20:52, 10 December 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.