Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 9

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. MER-C 19:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians with 4G connection (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians without 4G connection (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/Topical index#Wikipedians by technology. These categories are sufficiently different they don't quality for G4 deletion, but aren't any more useful. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, while 5G is being introduced these categories are outdated. By the way, I can't see a purpose for this type of categories anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2020 (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: merge to Category:Legislatures by legislative term of office. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Legislative sessions to Category:Legislatures by legislative term of office

Nominator's rationale: Merge and redirect to parent, as the nominated category currently only contains one sub-cat (for the United States). – Fayenatic London 21:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, a redundant category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:49, 10 November 2020 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Films in the Criterion Collection (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Re-creation of a category that has been deleted at least twice before, albeit with slightly different names (one, two). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete yet again. Still not a defining characteristic of the films. My library has over 600 of their titles now so I understand the desire to acknowledge their product but we have the List of Criterion Collection releases to benefit our readers. MarnetteD|Talk 16:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Better as a list. DonIago (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Per WP:G4. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I tried making a category like this myself back in December 2019, but stepped back after being made aware of WP:CATDEF. —Matthew - (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Now that I think about it, yeah this is probably better as a list. Prokrabsgod2 (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most articles on the films do not mention these releases. I fail to see their importance. Dimadick (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2020 (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: keep. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Female candidates for President of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Nominated for deletion because it detracts from gender equality. Please see full discussion on the category's talk page. 2601:281:CC80:5AE0:214D:A17E:8EE6:EB21 (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - gender equality has not been achieved in this sphere of life. Oculi (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – You are correct, Oculi, gender equality has not been achieved, and it should be self-evident that keeping this category exacerbates the problem of gender inequality – which Wikipedia defines as "the social process by which men and women are not treated as equals."

There are two ways to ensure that men and women are treated as equals:

(1) Have both a "Female candidates for President of the United States" category and a "Male candidates for President of the United States" category. Or,

(2) have neither.

What you are proposing – keeping the female category, without creating a male category – clearly contributes to greater gender inequality.

I prefer solution (2), "have neither," because segregating candidates by gender moves us further away from a world where voters don't give a second thought to a candidate's gender. MLK dreamed of a world where "people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." That is such a noble principle, he was honored with a national holiday! Surely he also did not want anyone to be judged by whether they are female or male. Segregating political candidates along those lines therefore detracts from the realization of MLK's vision. 2601:281:CC80:5AE0:B5D1:145:6AFD:6E71 (talk) 06:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this makes no distinction about how far along in the process anyone can get. Anyone native-born US citizen who is 35 years old or older can claim to be a candidate for president. Moreover, a politician need not be serious or part of party. What may be notable for some of these biographies is that they were politicians as senators, governors, or whatever, but when only a few months of their long lives were engaged in this pursuit (and ultimately, failed pursuit) is hard to be defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be saying that it is too easy to become a candidate for president. I respect that you hold this opinion. However, that has no bearing on the fact that having a category for one gender, but not for the other gender, is, by definition, gender inequality. 2601:281:CC80:5AE0:B5D1:145:6AFD:6E71 (talk) 06:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Not a valid reason for deletion. Dimadick (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete You have asserted that it's not a valid reason for deletion, without offering any arguments in support of your assertion! The existence of the category clearly increases gender inequality. Why would you support that? 2601:281:CC80:5AE0:D045:8825:69D9:B507 (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It does not increase gender inequality, at most it makes gender inequality visible. I wonder though if this category shouldn't be merged to Category:American women in politics per WP:OCEGRS as a non-notable intersection with gender. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in favour of List of female United States presidential and vice-presidential candidates. While we frequently have categories for female holders of a specific political office otherwise generally associated with men, being a candidate is no such office. I don't know what is the actual US practice, but where I live anybody can be considered a candidate from the time they find a media willing to report the fact that they wish to be one. An example of this confusion is Elizabeth Warren, which I believe was candidate to the Democratic primary but not the presidential election itself. Having a list article is therefore a lot more precise and useful than a category as it allows room for all these important nuances. The rationale that you cannot have a female category if you do not balance it with a male one is however erroneous, as explicitly mentioned in WP:CATGENDER:Place Clichy (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• If not kept, at least merge to Category:American women in politics, articles should not be entirely removed from that tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Oculi and Dimadick. SportingFlyer T·C 15:12, 17 November 2020 (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: close as premature. This is already being discussed at the location linked in the nominator's rationale. (non-admin closure) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 17:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Second Ladies of the United States

Nominator's rationale: Associated discussion of the renaming of Second Lady of the United States. Whatever consensus arose from that page will also apply here.

Please see Talk:Second Lady of the United States#In the event of a Female VP SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Close as premature. No point in discussing the same issue in different places. Oculi (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Close As premature. Once the article is renamed, this can be a speedy request under WP:C2D. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2020 (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. MER-C 19:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:Persian named brands or trade marks

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SHAREDNAME and WP:V

This is a subcategory of Category:Persian language and it currently only contains two articles:

• Nissan Qashqai: An SUV named after the Iranian ethnic group Qashqai people, although they traditionally speak the Qashqai language not Persian.
• Renault Kadjar: This SUV is officially named by combining two French words but there has been a lot of online discussion of the similarity to the pronounciation of Qajar dynasty.

English Wikipedia could definitely use more articles about the influence of Persian culture but I don't see a category with two automobile articles that are arguably Persian aiding navigation. -RevelationDirect (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Purge and WP:C1 will apply. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if there are no expectations of getting some more and better articles fitting to the cat. -- Just N. (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2020 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:Things named after animals

Nominator's rationale: Per my fear of potential WP:SHAREDNAME

This category is not currently needed and, if populated, would lead to category clutter. Currently, the only thing it it is the subcategory Category:Lists of things named after animals, which is the right place to present word etymologies. If individual articles were to be added directly to this category, the only things I can imagine are WP:SHAREDNAME violations like John Deere Gator, Panda Express or the Detroit Tigers. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and SHAREDNAME. Not too much linking the Stutz Bearcat and the Chicago Cubs. Grutness...wha? 00:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I created this in response to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_January_27#Category:Places_named_after_horses. As well as making or finding the lists, I found Kilkenny cats in Category:Etymologies, and moved it here. However, that was reverted by User:Jnestorius stating cats are not "named after animals", they are animals. Cat:Etymology because article discusses putative origins of the expr "Kilkenny cats". As no other contents have been added, I do not object to deletion. – Fayenatic London 08:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SHAREDNAME. Absurdly broad, equally might as well start having categories for "things with names that start with the letter A" BlackholeWA (talk) 08:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and SHAREDNAME. -- Just N. (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2020 (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.