Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 12



Minnesota United 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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Minnesota United FC players to Category:Minnesota United FC (2010–16) players
 * Propose renaming Category:Minnesota United FC (MLS) players to Category:Minnesota United FC players
 * Nominator's rationale: To match parent articles Minnesota United FC (2010–16) and Minnesota United FC. – Michael  ( talk ) 22:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. – Michael  ( talk ) 22:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - per WP:CFDS rationale of C2D, to match parent articles. GiantSnowman 21:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - per WP:C2D. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 18:03, 16 December 2016 (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:Accompaniment instruments

 * 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) 01:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting accompaniment instruments


 * Nominator's rationale: Too vague, almost anything could be included. — swpb T 18:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Too situational and WP:NONDEFINING. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * delete Is there any instrument that couldn't be used as part of an accompaniment? Seyasirt (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * DElete -- Any instrument could be used for this. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2016 (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 CEOs

 * 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) 00:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting male ceos


 * Propose deleting male astronauts


 * Nominator's rationale: Fail WP:CATGENDER Le Deluge (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete CEOs and move other to Category:Male astronauts, like Category:Male actors. CEOs have historically been male, so the topic of Male CEOs does not seem to be of significant special interest. However, men and women have both been astronauts pretty much throughout the history of space exploration. --Odie5533 (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Astronauts are another profession that has traditionally been heavily male-dominated, as they've tended to come from the military and engineering, neither of which have been historically popular with women. Just doing a rough count, there are 699 people in but only 71 in, which suggests 90% of astronauts are men. To my mind that sounds like the sort of case where WP:CATGENDER points to a female category but not a male category, as the latter just isn't very useful.Le Deluge (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think both are useful. For instance, there is Category:American female professional wrestlers with 248 women, and Category:American male professional wrestlers with 1,412 men. Men make up 85% of American professional wrestler articles, but it's still useful to have both categories. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sport is different - WP:CATGENDER explicitly talks about sportsperson categories constitute a case where "gender has a specific relation to the topic". In this case nationality is the obvious way to split things, gender is not a defining characteristic of astronautiness, but women are sufficiently unusual in the role for a female category to be "valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest, though it does not need to be balanced directly" against a male category.Le Deluge (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Professional wrestlers are actors, not sports athletes. The category is a subcat of e.g. American actresses. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In general, I believe, they fight in gender-segregated contests, so what matters is "gender has a specific relation to the topic" per WP:CATGENDER rather than whether you define them as actors or not. Anyway - this is not about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it's whether maleness is a defining characteristic for astronauts, and it's not.Le Deluge (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree. There are many studies and discussions about the unique experiences particular to male astronauts, even books written about the subject like The Astronaut: Cultural Mythology and Idealised Masculinity. Here is a NASA article about the differences men experience in space. And here's one of countless scholarly articles on the subject of male astronauts. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's all nice, but none of that looks defining from a WP:Categorization perspective. You don't get astronauts being denied a flight because they're male, in the way that gender deprives people of access to sporting events.Le Deluge (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It has nothing to do with being denied access to sporting events (??) or anything like that. It shows that the categorization of male astronauts is a useful one when considering both individual astronauts and the total of male astronauts as a group. I have no idea what you're talking about by astronauts being denied flights. --Odie5533 (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Have a read of WP:CATGENDER. The assumption is that in general we don't categorise by gender unless there's a good reason to. Sportspeople are an explicit exception allowed under that guideline, because people are denied access to certain events based on their gender, sport is divided on gender lines. Another exception is where one gender makes up a very small proportion of the total - that 90:10 split means that female astronauts are rare enough for their gender to be notable. That doesn't mean that maleness is a WP:DEFINING characteristic for astronauts. In general we don't categorise by gender - regardless of whether it might be "useful" in some way and regardless of whether WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.Le Deluge (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete both per considering the above discussion, which does not provide any convincing reason to deviate from the WP:CATGENDER guideline. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete; don't need to subdivide by sex Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2016 (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.