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. bibliomaniac15 19:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I disagree with the "plural" style of all the other entries in Category:Wikipedians by profession, but agree that at least it should be consistent across the board. Vitreologytalk 23:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a single-user category containing only its creator, who has made no ophthalmology-related edits (other than the above comment) in over a year. A merge to Category:Wikipedians interested in medicine isn't necessary as they are already in that category. If kept, Rename per nom. * Pppery *it has begun... 00:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and plural convention for list categories, if kept. Oculi (talk) 11:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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:speedy delete. – FayenaticLondon 18:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - The category creator - User:Maruf Hossain - appears to have emptied the cat and blanked the page. See this edit summary - [1] - jc37 13:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. ✗plicit 08:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ungrammatical naming convention. Most WP:SMALLCAT instances are probably due to incomplete categorization of our articles on knots and links. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
UpMerge/Delete all these links and knots number cats - These should be a list per WP:CLS. Noting that List of mathematical knots and links already exists and could be expanded as necessary. - jc37 13:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, this causes an unreasonable amount of category clutter in the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
So we have "Passenger car (rail)", "Passenger coaches", and "Railway coaches". All 3 names redirect to the main article. Should the category be renamed to match the parent article (C2D)? Should it be renamed to match its sub-category? Or should it stay like this and have a situation where article and category are named completely different? Gonnym (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RenamePassenger car (rail) has been at that name since it was created in 2004; that's a rare island of stability in Wikipedia. The entire tree should follow the main article per WP:C2D with potential country exceptions if there's a clear WP:ENGVAR with "passenger coaches". - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename etc per RevelationDirect. Oculi (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as "coach" is the official and most common term used by the International Union of Railways - see for example their "List of Reports & Technical Documents" in which "passenger coach" appears 29 times whereas "passenger car" is absent. Examples of their reports include "Strength of Bodies of Passenger Coaches" and "Winter Problems on Passenger Coaches". Specifically their international thesaurus only mentions coaches in this context. "Passenger car" is primarily a North American term, so I think it may now be time to internationalise the article as well as the category. Bermicourt (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the main article doesn't reflect a global viewpoint, the right venue is an WP:RM at Talk:Passenger car (rail). If that passes, then you can speedy rename all thee categories per WP:C2D. - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is an ENGVAR issue, something not necessarily resolved in favour of American usage. Rename main article - I would suggest the target should be Railway coach, as passenger coach can be a road vehicle and I think Americans may use car for goods waggons. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that the term car for freight railcars (goods waggons) is used in America (as well as Canada and Mexico). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peterkingiron. -- This seems to be an ENGVAR issue indeed. --Just N. (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per RevelationDirect. Additionally, Passenger cars (rail) makes it more clear that the subject is railroad related as opposed to road transport related compared to the current name. If this category is not renamed to Passenger cars (rail), then I support Peterkingiron's proposed solution. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Further comment "Passenger car (rail)" is a meaningless term in British English, where a car is driven on a road. We understand cable cars. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
`Use "coaches" and RM article - coach is the international standard and the category tree should follow. Grutness...wha? 02:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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:no consensus. ✗plicit 08:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CATGENDER. The vast majority of artists historically have been men so there is nothing notable about being a male artist, nor are there events, organizations, or awards specifically for male artists. It makes sense for there to be a women artists category, but as WP:CATGENDER explains, there is no need to balance that against a male category. This also applies to the subcategories under Male artists. Nosferattus (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence of CATGENDER is really something. In a paragraph otherwise about sports, we just say "yeah, these ones are separate too". We could add other things to that sentence if we were so inclined, like Category:Male singers and Category:Female singers. Artists would not seem to be out of place with such company. And while I certainly appreciate that Wikipedia is a tertiary source that follows rather than leads, I'm wary of actions that further entrench our systemic bias. --BDD (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment, the subcategories should be nominated too. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the 4 direct subcategories and put notices on them. Unfortunately, there are dozens of subcategories under those, so I don't think it's practical to add all of them. Nosferattus (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the remaining ones. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, per nom. Artists do not perform separately by gender, like sportspeople do, or monks and nuns. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In general sex is not defining to artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all of them. They make navigation of Wikipedia easier for users. It is very helpful for finding male artists. It is a non-diffusing subcategory anyway. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Every category makes navigation easier, that it is not an argument for keeping. At the same time, on the negative side, every category contributes to more category clutter in the articles so we should be selective. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The point of categories is to make navigation easier. That's the argument for keeping them. Male and female are very reasonable and much needed categoires to sort things by. If we delete male, we have to delete female too. Then it would be very difficult for people to find male or female artists. This suggestion to delete them is really bad. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are misunderstanding. They don't need to be balanced for the sake of balance. I said women's artists would need to be deleted under the same logic of deleting men's artists. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 05:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll make this official. "The vast majority of artists historically have been men" is wrongheaded, and this move would absolutely further entrench our systemic bias. It's probably worth discussing clarification to CATGENDER. --BDD (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt if there is reliable data about gender distribution of artists throughout the centuries, but ultimately we do have a far higher number of articles about men artists than about women artists. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BDD, and as creator of at least some of these. We have been dinged in the past for segregating women of a certain profession into categories by gender without doing the same for men in the same profession. This is an attempt to respond to that concern. Yes, there are a lot more male artists than female, historically...even so, if we're going to categorize by one gender we need to start thinking about doing so by both more broadly. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We categorise women by occupation, mostly, because they are, or were, in a minority. We dont need to do that with male categories. In some professions - acting and singing for example - there are clearly male and female roles and we categorise both. I dont see that we need to do that with artists. Rathfelder (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I do understand that most women categories were created because they are generally in a minority as far as articles go, I actually do think that categories should make navigation easier. If the nominator's argument is that it makes sense for there to be a women artists category, but not a male category, then I am somewhat lost. If there is women artists category, then there would inveitably be a male artists category, even if it isn't titled that. So, just leave it for ease of navigation. ExRat (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. – FayenaticLondon 11:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: There's not any actual significant events for the category and the 1 page in the category is already in other more specific categories DemonStalker (talk) 02:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 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.
