Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 23

March 23

Category:The Blackout

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. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as unrelated subjects with shared names. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 00:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This category appears to be being used for disambiguation, but that is not the purpose of categories. Choalbaton 00:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is categorization by name, a form of overcategorization. Dr. Submillimeter 14:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as categorisation by name. --Xdamr^talk 01:11, 25 March 2007 (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.

Category:Arrangers for Ella Fitzgerald

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. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Category:Music arrangers as overcategorization by job or project. Prolific arrangers could end up with dozens of categories if this categorization scheme is adopted. Otto4711 23:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Choalbaton 01:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Category:Music arrangers - The list of categories for each and every person that music arrangers have worked for would be long and difficult to read. Dr. Submillimeter 09:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all. Vegaswikian 20:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge all per nom. --Xdamr^talk 01:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until people involved in these categories are consulted. Someone has gone to a fair bit of work here to come up with a sensible categorization scheme. A Musing (formerly Sam) 13:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Creating categories for arrangers by which singers they might or might not have worked with sounds like a bad idea, a bit like "Directors who worked with Robert De Niro". Dugwiki 18:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Category:Music arrangers per nom. --rimshots^talk 12:44, 27 March 2007 (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.

Category:Gorsedd

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. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Gorsedd to Category:Gorseddau

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, "Gorsedd" is singular (see Gorsedd) and category names must be plural. The Wednesday Island 23:02, 23 March 2007 (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.

Category:Teletoon shows

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. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are three different channels called Teletoon and there is no indication whether the category is intended to be for one of the three or all of them. The show is mostly capturing programs shown in syndication, which is inappropriate categorization. Finally, there are lists either in the channel articles or in separate list articles which given the multiple channels strikes me as a better way to capture the information. Otto4711 22:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - TV shows should not categorized according to their appearance on networks outside of the countries in which the shows were originally created. Some American and Japanese shows would have very lengthy, difficult-to-read category lists if Wikipedia used such a scheme. Dr. Submillimeter 09:28, 24 March 2007 (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.

Category:Fictional plays

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 (no rename). The debate was about evenly split, and as someone uninvolved, I can't see that it really matters very much one way or the other. Most people (like myself) are not going to understand the distinction between the two choices. I don't see any arguments that show a convincing need to change the category, nor to keep it as is. With the current standard being "Fictional", that seems reason enough to keep it as is. -- Samuel Wantman 08:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional plays to Category:Fictitious plays

Propose renaming Category:Fictional films to Category:Fictitious films

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Avoid ambiguity: category is for plays that exist within works of fiction, rather than plays with fictional content. Same reasons for "Fictional films". Croxley 21:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Category:Fictitious films is currently a redirect to Category:Fictional films, so that would only need to be fixed. Croxley 21:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both per nom - I was originally going to oppose this on the grounds that no one could be so dopey as to add a "fictional" category to a real play, but damn if half the articles in the category weren't for real plays. I guess we better check the film one too. Sheesh. Otto4711 23:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse rename Category:Fictitious films to Category:Fictional films, and leave the plays category alone. "Fictional" is the standard, and we should just make sure the header is clear.--Mike Selinker 01:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to the word that means what we want to say. Mike Selinker's assumes that everyone will see, read and observe the header, which isn't very likely. Haddiscoe 13:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename using "fictitous" - Most readers probably will not notice the subtle difference between "fictional" and "fictitous". Currently, most readers will not understand that these categories are for plays and films within fictional storylines and not "real-life" plays and films. Unfortunately, the proposed rename using "fictitous" does nothing to solve that problem. I agree that a rename is needed but I suggest trying something else. Dr. Submillimeter 17:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom for accuracy. AshbyJnr 01:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object per Submillimeter. >Radiant< 07:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as noted, "fictional" is the standard, and "fictitious" isn't any better. -Sean Curtin 05:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Submillimeter. Croxley's nomination is a useful effort to address a real problem, but reluctantly I have to agree that the change to "fictitious" is little (if any) better, and the small improvement doesn't outweigh the disadvantages of moving award from the standard naming format of Category:Fictional media. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:58, 28 March 2007 (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.

Pages needing expert attention subcategories

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.

Endorse rename per nom. These cats all sound pretty ridiculous as is. Wickethewok 21:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Long category names are annoying and the shorter versions are much clearer. — brighterorange (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I'm fine with the renaming, just make sure that the templates {{Expert-subject}} and {{Expert-subject-cat}} get updated accordingly. If you need a hand doing that, lemme know and I'll take care of it. --Brad Beattie (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the proposal I made for those templates here. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - Makes far more sense shortening the categories. --Scottie_theNerd 02:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endore. K.I.S.S. Mathmo ^Talk 07:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Not a big deal, but definitely an improvement. Nathanian 23:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Saying expert twice is redundant, a rename would be better. NiGHTS into Dreams... 22:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all Category:Articles needing attention from foo experts, which avoids the duplicate use of "expert" without changing the meaning of the category. At present the category obviously includes any article needing that fooish expertise, even if it's not generally about that subject, but the proposed renaming implicitly narrows the definition to articles which are predominantly about foo.
As an example, Alexander Litvinenko is primarily a biographical article, and secondarily a murder article ... but an editor might want to call in a physics expert to check the sections dealing with polonium. It would be misleading to place the article in Category:Science articles needing expert attention, but entirely appropriate for it to be in Category:Articles needing attention from science experts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How about Category:Articles needing foo expert attention? I like your suggestion, but we can make it a little shorter. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:33, 29 March 2007 (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.

Category:Looney Tunes people

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. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - improper categorization by project/studio. Otto4711 21:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vague category. Doczilla 23:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom—improper categorisation and named so as to be too vague for any proper use. --Xdamr^talk 01:14, 25 March 2007 (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.

Category:Women writers

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 to keep deleted, so restore (nearly every admin has voted on this, so I'm closing it).--Mike Selinker 15:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed previously at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 27#Category:Women writers and deleted. New arguments, and some new relevant information, was presented at deletion review, where no clear decision was reached on overturning or endorsing. So this is here for further consideration of the merits. While both discussions should be read to be fully informed, the discussion at deletion review are undoubtedly more extensive.

The deletion review was marred by Canvassing, and all editors are strongly encouraged to make absolutely certain that they do not violate this rule as regards this discussion. This is a technical nomination, I have no opinion on the merits. GRBerry 20:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Note to closing admin: please read the arguments present and comment on why a decision was made. Patstuart^talk·edits 02:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for biased lack of gender neutrality as per the previous discussions. Ravenhurst 22:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe this was already answered in the DRV:
  WP:CATGRS suggests that gender asymmetries in categories - such as that which would pertain if Category:Women writers existed and Category:Men writers didn't - should sometimes be allowed (the example there is Category:female heads of government), and not denied a priori as sexist. In this case, the asymmetry results from the fact that historically women writers have been a fairly self-conscious minority, and is visible today in the larger number of academic courses devoting themselves to literature by women than those devoting themselves to literature by men. I'd have no objection to having a men writers category if there were sufficient interest in properly maintaining it (here I should perhaps confess a bias - I'm a male writer myself!) - but when both categories existed it's a fact that the women writers category was much more satisfactorily populated. Dsp13 13:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  I'm not yet sure of the utility of this category, myself, but I am going to insist that previous answers are not summarily dismissed. — coel acan — 00:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This category was properly deleted and the restoration was improper as there was no consensus to restore it. The additional arguments put forward were all irrelevant to the categories merits (or lack thereof) as a category, ie as a navigational tool. Osomec 22:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Osomec, please could you address the specific tests set in WP:CATGRS? Specifically, in what way do you believe that the evidence is "irrelevant" to those tests? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't going to be a speedy deletion, because GRBerry already decided there was enough support for a relisting from DRV. No one is going to wheel war by speedy deleting it. So you might as well discuss the category instead of the DRV result. — coel acan — 00:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There was a tie at deletion review. A tie always relists. Deletion review is not a consensus forum; we tried to change it to one last fall, but that consensus failed to be sustained when it was pushed at this spring. See Wikipedia talk:Undeletion policy#Switch to consensus for the primary (slow moving) discussion on this issue, and the deletion review talk page and last two archives for some related conversation. GRBerry 03:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as a notable field of scholarly research, per Women's writing in English, and as an important classification of writers, regardless of whether they are studied from a feminist perspective or not; indeed, as noted at the DRV, some of the historical study of women writers has been critical of previous feminist accounts. (Note: in the previous CfD for this category, I supported deletion, but was persuaded by the new evidence that I was wrong).
WP:CATGRS is explicit that "a gender-specific category should only be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic", and the scholarship in this area is clear that it does have relevance (although, naturally, scholars may disagree about what relevance!)
Please note that WP:CATGRS says that "Generally, this means that the basic criterion for such a category is whether the topic has already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources" ... and that "The criterion of whether an encyclopedic article is possible should be the gauge". In this case the article Women's writing in English meets that test, and Ravenhurst's comment about "bias" is a POV remark of no relevance to the test set in the guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there's a pretty solid case that WP:CATGRS allows for this category, per the evidence in the DRV. I have a different concern (which it needn't fall upon you to address, but you're the first keep !voter). It might not be odd to have an article about the history of women in writing; people expect such an article. But it seems to me that while it has historically been an issue, it is not surprising to anyone today that there are female writers. I wonder if this categorization embalms an older way of thinking: there are writers (normative, no adjective) and then there are women writers (exception, needs an adjective). Who's left in category:writers? Men, because men are normative; men are just "writers". Might that (not only POV but inaccurate) message be inferred? Would this disadvantage be worth the advantage of sorting, when, instead of a list, this message is displayed at the bottom of every female writer's article? — coel acan — 01:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coelcan, your point about a "women writers" category making male writers appear normative is a valid concern, but it is a policy issue relating to any of the categories discussed in WP:CATGRS (e.g. LGBT politicians), and should be raised at the guideline level, not wrt to the application of that guideline (otherwise we might as well not have a guideline). Personally, I think that concern is already addressed in WP:CATGRS, which requires that 'a valid occupational subcategory should be structured and filed in such a way as to avoid "ghettoizing" people', by not making the gendered categ the final rung in the category tree. So, for example, "Irish poets" should not be sub-divided by gender, but those poets may also (where appropriate) be categorised under "Women poets" or "Irish women writers". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my take: the "writers" category is a higher level category, and everyone within it needs to be in subcategories (you'll note that there is a relatively short list of writers in it, and those will get cleaned up and classed in subcats). Within those subcats, I'd expect a number of relevant subcats to apply to any writer: if you look at Shakespeare, he is in Category:Authors whose works are in the public domain, Category:English Renaissance dramatists, Category:English dramatists and playwrights, Category:English poets and Category:Sonneteers; if you look at Emily Dickinson, she is in Category:Women writers, Category:American poets, and Category:Massachusetts writers. I think there are questions to think about relating to how best to use the category (should Emily Dickinson be a "Woman poet", in a subcat of women writers?), but that should not detract from recognizing the value of having the category to begin with.A Musing (formerly Sam) 01:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a policy concern, actually. As I said, I think that there's a pretty solid case that WP:CATGRS allows for this category. But that's a guideline, and we are free to ignore it on a case by case basis if consensus favors doing so. And in any case CATGRS allows for this category, it doesn't demand it; it's still up to us to decide how and when to apply it (answer: usually). I'm just saying that there might be reason to ignore it here. CATGRS is almost always useful, in my experience. In this case it might be more detrimental than useful. I'd rather discuss this case as a valid concern than be told to take the issue elsewhere, when I don't have a concern with the guideline, but rather a concern specifically with this category. Now, if you think the concern is already addressed, okay. I don't, but I'm not going to shake it out of you ;-) — coel acan — 16:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coelacan, the reason that I think your concern is a policy one is that I don't see any issue here is that the question of a normatising effect could be applied equally to nearly all categories to which WP:CATGRS applies. It seems to me that this another way of phrasing the "ghettoisation" question, which is specifically covered in WP:CATGRS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt recreation. Doczilla 23:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a recreation. It is back from DRV. — coel acan — 00:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think these speedy deletes make clear that for many eliminating this category is a mission - why? What's wrong with a substantive discussion on it? A Musing (formerly Sam) 01:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I can't see any grounds for recreation. This category does not serve any practical navigational purpose. Those who wish to have a category is this field are overlooking that the appropriate category on the field of study would be called Category:Women's studies, and they haven't gotten round to creating it yet. Choalbaton 01:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: Women's literature is a branch, as the name implies, of literary studies. Women's studies is something else, broader and multi-disciplinary. They are by no means interchangable. scribblingwoman (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the nomination? This isn't a recreation and it can't be speedy deleted. It was relisted from DRV. — coel acan — 01:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We should only categorize by gender when the inclusion of one gender is remarkable (e.g., Category:Female baseball players). There's nothing remarkable about a writer being a woman; it's entirely possible that there are more female writers than male ones at this point.--Mike Selinker 01:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike, you will find that rarity is not the only criterion listed in WP:CATGRS. The other test is whether a properly sourced, non-trivial head article can be written which amounts to more than a list. Women's writing in English is that head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (It should be speediable, whether or not it actually is). The policy referred to by coel is incompatible with Wikipedia:Neutrality, so it needs to be changed. Wikipedia should not follow the pattern of academia, as academia's priorities notoriously veer to the left, and neutrality has no place in them. In Wikipedia on the other hand, neutrality is fundamental.CalJW 02:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply If you want wikipedia to reject the whole of academia as axiomatically unreliable and POV, then you need to change wikipedia's policy, and specifically seek a radical change in WP:ATTR. Unless and until you achieve that change, the policy stands. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Academia is not unreliable as the existence of facts, but it uses them in a biased way. This discussion is not about the sourcing of facts, but the scoping of categories. When it comes to that, it is Wikipedia's policies that should be followed, especially neutrality, not the priorities of any outside group, whether left-wing academics or right-wing religous fundamentalists. CalJW 13:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - CalJW, if you really believe that academia as a whole uses facts in a biased way, and that acdemia is therefore untrustworthy, then you need to take that up as an issue wrt to rewriting WP:ATTR to seek disparagement of academic sources. Unless and until you succeed in changing that policy, your position is pure POV. In the meantime, huge swathes of wikipedia are categorised according to academic methods, and your belief that academia is a communist conspiracy is a red herring. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlike female composers and painters, female writers are a major part of the traditional canon. Female heads of government are rare, but there are enough female writers in the U.S. alone to fill The Big House. Annandale 03:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was on the fence but comments like we should not pay attention to academia because of its "notorious" left-veering lead me to believe that some of the sentiment against this category are based in some level of bias. I agree that the existence of the new head article justifies the existence of the category. Otto4711 04:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is totally false accusation of bad faith. I am sitting here passionately defending neutrality against very obviously non-neutral tendencies, and you are accusing me of bias. We don't categorise people in ways that fit the prejudices of the Ku Klux Klan, and we should overlook the prejudices of Boston Brahmins with equal rigour. Neutrality does not mean favouring the views of nice people, it means doing our upmost to make it impossible for anyone to discern any favouritism at all. But at the moment we are not doing a great job. As for the facts on the polfor one I believe), and I'm sure you can find them easily enough via google if you are interested. CalJW 13:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - CalJW, your position is based in dismissing the whole of global academia as having a left-wing bias, and on assuming that a left-wing bias inevitably leads to a particular view of women's place in the world. However, one of Wikipedia's pillars is WP:NOR; we reflect the balance of the scholarship that is out there, rather than doing our own primary research, and apart from the bizarre nature of your unsubstantiated assertion about academia as a whole, you are essentially asking us to ditch WP:NOR and to dump all academic scholarship as a breach of WP:RS. What's next? Will the Marxists be asking us to dump all classifications in business and economics because acdemia is not sufficiently marxist? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- obviously, as I asked for the category to be reconsidered in the first place. coelacan, your question is a good one: "Who's left in category:writers? Men, because men are normative; men are just 'writers'. Might that (not only POV but inaccurate) message be inferred? Would this disadvantage be worth the advantage of sorting, when, instead of a list, this message is displayed at the bottom of every female writer's article?" And a number of others have made the related point that women are well-represented among writers today. I suppose from my perspective, as someone who does work on writers three hundred years ago give or take, I am more focused on all the centuries when women writers were very much a minority, and in that sense the present situation of comparitive ease is a pleasant but recent development. And as several others pointed out at the previous discussion, it is erroneous to state that women writers now enjoy a comfortable position of equality when in so many parts of the world this is patently not the case. UK and North American literatures are only two, albeit two very powerful, traditions when one considers a global perspective. The argument that everything is fine ignores history, and much of the world. Choalbaton, although it is a significant part of many women's and gender studies programmes, women's literature is a subset of literary studies, not of women's studies, which is cross-disciplinary. So no, the women's studies category would be inappropriate. Otto4711, you make a good point (though I was trying to say nothing, myself!). scribblingwoman (talk) 06:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made sure not to argue that everything is fine. But the application of the category would be very strange on articles where and when everything is indeed fine. For example, properly applied, the category would go on Anne Rice's article, which would be, well, strange. There's nothing surprising about a woman in her time and place being a writer. What would actually be surprising, in my opinion, would be to find this category on her page instead of Category:Writers. If it's organization and navigation you want, I wonder why you don't just use the list of women writers? That doesn't have the disadvantage of showing up in strange places. — coel acan — 07:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Coelacan, have you looked at the Anne Rice article? You will not find Category:Writers there, because she is in about 8 sub-categories, and including her in Category:Women writers is no more unusual than her currently slot in Category:California writers. Some readers will be interested in Californian writers, possibly because her Californian background may make her approach her subject matter differently; similarly, some may be interested in looking at Category:American women writers or Category:Women horror writers for similar reasons. The reasons for using a category rather than a list are much the same in each case, to do with ease of navigation etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the Anne Rice article. Speaking generally, whenever there are categories that represent intersections, these are of two types. One type is the "intersection for breaking up a huge category". The most common of this type is the occupation-by-location intersection, which Category:California writers represents. The other type is the "intersection for remarkability". This is the type that this category purports to be, but it is unremarkable that Anne Rice is both a woman and a writer. For a woman in her time and place, it is as unremarkable as Category:Women would be, and I believe it would be strange and improper to categorize her like this, for the same reason we don't use Category:Actresses, only Category:Actors. — coel acan — 02:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would guess that approximately half of all contemporary writers are women. A category for all female writers would be enormous but would say little about what may be unique about female writers. Therefore, having this category serves little purpose. My general recommendation is to use articles to describe the experiences of women (including discrimination) within any given field rather than use categories to group women together. Categories simply list people, which generally does not say much about the people's experiences. Dr. Submillimeter 08:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply There is plenty of research supporting the view that women are likely to write on different matter, and to approach that material differently. What matters is not whether that applies in all cases, but that there is a body of scholarship which finds this a useful lens through which literature can be approached. It is a similar question to the merits of categorising writers by nationality; nationality is one of the factors which may influence a writer's work, and we create the category to facilitate those readers who want to use that dimension to explore writers.
  Using articles rather than categories to explore the experiences of women is an interesting view, but again it's not what the guideline says; and exactly the same suggestion could be applied to nationality sub-categories of occupations. "Women writers" are something sought by many readers, whether or not you personally find that useful, and your argument appears to b one against the category sytstem as a whole rather than a particular problem wrt to women writers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is only a minor point, and I don't know the gender statistics for all contemporary writers, but male and female writers don't appear to be equally common on wikipedia. Browsing the subcategories of Category:Writers, male writers appear to be more common. This impression is supported by the number of hits returned by search engines: 'site:en.wikipedia.org writers he' returns 76,500 hits on Google (95,000 on Yahoo for an equivalent search), while 'site:en.wikipedia.org writers she' returns 33,900 on Google (38,700 on Yahoo). I agree though that a women writers category would be very large if left without subcategories. The primary benefit of having it would be to develop the subcategories which those who think about women's literature do want. Dsp13 19:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: I wouldn't be surprised to find that half of published writers in the West are women. But that is certainly not the case globally. And if you look at, say, the list of all the people who have won the Noble prize for literature, well, it is nowhere near 50%. Understand, these are not my reasons for supporting this category. But it won't do to have people basing their opinions on incomplete information. scribblingwoman (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not useful for navigation if fully populated. If a category is not useful for navigation, no other attributes should save it. Haddiscoe 13:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it has already begun to be subcategorized by nationality, are you sure it could not be useful navigationally? Why? — coel acan — 16:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why you assume that that this will just be one huge category? Work has already begun on sub-categorising it, precisely to make it useful for navigation. You might as well object to Category:Politicians because it will be too big ... it would be, if it wasn't sub-catted. It can (and should, IMO) be sub-catted both by nationality and by genre, so that we have (for example) both Australian Women Writers and Women horror writers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC) --16:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one set of subcategories will answer. Why are you subcategorising by nationality rather than by field? All the subcategories should be deleted. Honbicot 19:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honbicot, please re-read my comment. I gave two examples of sub-cats which I would support, not one ... and field is another dimension which would be useful too. And please can you explain how you make the big leap from saying that field is the most appropriate way to sub-categorise to your conclusion that all the subcategories should be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in favour of a list, which can be restricted to useful examples. Honbicot 19:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Who determines what are "useful examples"? Examples of what, exactly? It has already been stated in the earlier parts of this discussion that women writers as a category does not imply writers who write from a particular perspective or about particular subjects. How then would these "examples" be determined? The people who work on women writers keep saying that lists are not sufficiently useful in every instance. What if, for example, someone was interested in comparing women writers of two regions or nationalities. They would need access to information on all women writers in the two groups, not just ones deemed "representitive" in some way, if they were to learn anything meaningful. Literary history is skewed because scholars often only look at particular sorts of writers (i.e. "serious"; "literary"). Full and comprehensive information would give a much fuller picture. For example, years ago when people discussed the beginnings of the novel the same names were almost always the focus of discussion: Defoe, Richardson, and Fielding. More recently scholars looked harder at what had actually been published instead of what their predecessors saw fit to discuss, and what did they discover? That there were scads of women publishing at the same time, often potboilers, amatory fiction, and gothic novels. Now most people would not want want to read too much of this material and fair enough, but the fact that it exists and that it was central to how people in the period understood the novel is immensely significant. The category of "women writers" is immensely useful for people interested in literary history, publication, the literary marketplace, and a host of other areas. scribblingwoman (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The same people would determine who was on the list as would determine who is on the category, so by your logic both are equally illegitimate. Hawkestone 16:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Response: I'm sorry, I'm not following your argument. I was questioning the value of relying on a selective list. ? scribblingwoman (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an important academic field of study, and creates navigational tools that assist in common and important inquiries (e.g., the ability to compare and contrast women writers across time periods and cultures). Consolidating this information in categories is the essence of what categories do, allowing us to explore the full range and diversity of a category, especially a well populated one. I'm someone with an interest, for example, in Arabic poetry, where the importance of elegic poetry written by women in the early centuries of the Arabic language is usefully compared to women's laments in Europe in subsequent years. To explore either area by way of other categories is virtually impossible. A Musing (formerly Sam) 19:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The existence of an academic field of interest justifies a category for people who work in that field, but not necessarily one for the things that they study. For example, you wouldn't expect to find chemical elements categorised separately for each branch of science to which they are of interest. The same applies to writers: if we start for those that are of interest to people who study women's literature, why not do the same for writers who are of interest to Freudians, or Marxists, and so on? We would end up with too many categories. AshbyJnr 01:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. As it happens, there are currently categories for Marxist writers - and indeed for Marxist economists, Marxist historians, Marxist journalists, Marxist writers and Scholars of Marxism. There is also a category for Freudians. But the study of women's literature is defined by a particular category of writers (viz., women writers) in a way in which Freudianism or Marxism (which are each, perhaps, defined instead by particular theoretical commitments) is not. So I find the analogy, and any conclusion based on it, unconvincing. As for the analogy between writers and chemical elements, as far as it goes, I'm not sure that it supports your conclusion. The subcategories of Chemical element groups are subcategories which do indeed, amongst other things, correspond to different sub-branches of study. Dsp13 02:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm afraid that you have rather missed the point. Marxist writers is not the same type of category as this one. The subjects of the articles in the Marxist categories shared an interest in the same subject, ie. Marxism, whereas the justification being put forward for this category is that the subjects of the articles are of interest to the same group of outsiders, ie people engaged in the academic study of women's literature. The great majority of women writers are not involved in the academic study of women's role in literature: many of them lived before it existed, and still more have never written about the subject. That said, the Marxist categor has some problems of its own, and should arguably be deleted as well, but that's a different debate. AshbyJnr 11:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response: You are conflating intellectual history (people who study women's literature) with the thing itself (women writers), and seem to imply that the thing itself doesn't exist outside the work of a group of academics. Without getting too philosophical, I would say that since women writers are considered a subject of interest by a critical mass (comprised not just of academics), it is the business of Wikipedia to reflect that by providing manageable access to information. scribblingwoman (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my previous contributions on DRV, and the arguments of scribblingwoman and BrownHairedGirl. I should say that I was a user and navigator of the category before its deletion. But I've learnt from this and previous discussions - and very much hope that any action is non-speedy: there have been strongly-voiced concerns on each side, and it seems important that this discussion be allowed to mature as fully as possible. Dsp13 02:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inappropriate and partial by-gender categorisation. The existence of a head article does not justify the nomination - a head article could be written about any of the topics that are currently heading for deletion via this page. Greg Grahame 10:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question/response: "Inappropriate" how? And, the question of the category being "partial" (I assume you mean because there is no "Category:Men writers" being argued for?) has already been answered, at some length, in the earlier discussion. scribblingwoman (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Greg Grahame: plaese read WP:CATGRS, where partial by-gender categorisation is explicitly permitted. The issue is whether this category is justified, not whether a male category would be justified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favour of scanning the existing writer categories for women's names. The existing categories cover a full range of literatures and literary forms, so they provide a superior method of accessing articles about women writers compared to this category. It's true that most of us might have difficulty picking out the womens' names in categories of writers with non-European names, but presumably people with a knowledge of those literatures would not have a problem. Hawkestone 16:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Women's writing is a broad field and someone interested in it, particularly a student, would not have such specialized knowledge. scribblingwoman (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Are you suggesting that we go through, say, "Irish poets," and create a new list of "Irish women poets"? And &c for all the other various subcategories of writers? Many who are in favour of keeping "women writers" have already been arguing in favour of further development of subcategories, so I'm not sure why you are suggesting to delete. Do we not need an overarching category? I think we do: some might come to "Irish women poets" from "Irish writers," and others from "Poets." But yet others would find their way there from "women writers." scribblingwoman (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkestone, your argument is an interesting one, but it's not an argument against this category: exactly the same argument could be applied to any category of women by occupation. Is there some particular reason why think that it should be applied to this categ in particular? Or do you think that all women-by-occupation categories should be deleted in favour of scanning the ungendered categories? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are thousands of women writers. There is nothing remarkable about a woman becoming a writer. More significantly, only a very small fraction of articles about women writers can contain any information useful for the study of women's role in literature. Nathanian 23:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nathanian, I do not follow your argument. Are you saying that categories at Wikipedia should only represent what is remarkable? Also, how can the articles about women writers NOT assist in studying women's role in literature? The subcategories currently being developed (albeit optimistically, but also as a positive result of this discussion) under Women writers separate the writers by nationality, format, and other criteria, which would allow reseachers to easily navigate to articles that can be compared and contrasted. This would inevitably aid in studying women's role in literature, don't you think? --Susiebowers 00:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As has already been pointed out -- and more than once -- while the position of contemporary women writers in the West may be relatively egalitarian, that is not the case globally, and it certainly hasn't been the case historically. And the argument that most articles cannot contain much information is spurious: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such has a mandate to provide basic overviews and perhaps directions for further study. One would not expect it to be a resource for research except of the most rudimentary kind. scribblingwoman (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am restating my reasons for the importance of keeping this category in case not all of the contributors to this discussion have read the previous debates.

1. Discussing women writers because they are women is not the same as discussing them from a feminist perspective (this is why we need to distinguish "feminist writers" from "women writers"). One of the reasons that figures such as Hannah More, Sarah Trimmer and Anna Laetitia Barbauld are just now getting attention is that scholars like Margaret Ezell criticized feminists for only recovering historical women like themselves. There is no way that these women could be classified as "feminist writers," they can only be classified as "women writers."

2. Over 700 instutions around the world (at least) offer degrees in women's studies or gender studies (see [1]), including, for what it's worth, every Ivy League university. There are professors holding chairs in this field all over the country and teaching courses in it. If all of these universities feel that it is useful to have degrees in this subject, wikipedia should reflect that category. Many people who receive degrees in this field study "women writers."

3. Just a quick glance at almost any university's English department will reveal at least one course on literature by women (Michigan, for example, has at least one for undergraduates - they may have more, but it's hard to tell from their catalogue; Columbia has four or five - depending on how you count).

4. The University Press of Kentucky publishes a series entitled "Eighteenth-century Novels by Women."

5. There is a well-respected academic journal called Women's Writing which "publishes articles to serve as a forum for dialogue, discussion, and debate about the work of women writing from the Elizabethan to the Victorian period" according to its mission statement. That is just one of the many journals dedicated to women writers.

6. There are 6335 entries in the MLA database (the major database for literature articles and books assembled by the Modern Language Association, the association of literature professors) listed under the category "women writers." Note, they have the category.

7. The Library of Congress also uses the category "women writers."

8. On the point about it being a huge category, that is a problem, but perhaps someday we will be able to combine categories and search for eighteenth-century writer and woman writer, for example. That is the ideal situation, is it not? We should not restrict our future abilities because of our current technical limitations.

9. Does "women writers" fulfil the requirements for a category according to WP:CATGRS? Yes.

I quote from WP:CATGRS: "Categories should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. You should be able to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) for the category — if this cannot be done, then the category should be seen as not valid. Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category can be created, but it must be at least possible to create one. Generally, this means that the basic criterion for such a category is whether the topic has already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources."

Is "women writers" "recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right"? Yes, we have demonstrated that with evidence of degree programs, syllabi, etc.
Is it possible to write a head article for "women writers"? Yes. It has already been done. Please note that this is not a requirement for a category to exist according to wikipedia's guidelines.
Has "women writers" "already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources"? Yes. Again, major universities, academic presses, the Library of Congress and the major organization of literature professors recognizes it as such.

I also want to defend scribblingwoman. In no way did she spam others or cause a disruption to the deletion review because of the views she solicited. In fact, if I had known that the category was being considered for deletion earlier, I would certainly have entered the debate, but I did not know. scribblingwoman contacted those of us who know something about this field and whose pages were affected by the change. This was entirely proper. In fact, one user mentioned during the deletion review that the second debate was significantly more informed than the first and another mentioned that it should become standard practice to inform people whose pages are affected. The raised level of the debate and the suggestion for an improvement in policy is entirely due to scribblingwoman's efforts. The debate was therefore not marred by canvassing as has been suggested. Awadewit 03:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. YES, we cover women writers in our encyclopedia. NO, a category that contains every woman writer is not a feasible method of doing so. The only reason this is back on CFD again is because not everybody understands the difference between the two. >Radiant< 08:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Radiant, that's a technical argument, and exactly the same argument applies to say, Category:Politicians or Category:Sportspeople. They have exactly the same potential to be huge, but we deal with that by using lots of sub-categories, per WP:CAT. Category:Footballers would stupendously, humungously and utterly unfeasibly ginormous if we didn't sub-categorise, but by being subcatted it's both manageable and very useful to those interested in football. Category:Women writers can be broken down in the same way, with whatever level of specificity is required to keep individual categories at a manageable size. Heck, if we can sub-categorise Category:People, women writers will be easy! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response no, it's not the same. The difference is that those cats-by-profession tell us something new. If we have, say, an Indonesian Politician, it's useful to put her in a cat for Indonesian Politicians, but not to also put her in Indonesian Women and Woman Politicians. In effect you're stating everything twice. The more cats an article has, the more problematic this becomes. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: "Indonesian politicians" would not be the easiest way for someone interested in "women politicians" to find what they wanted. They would have to go to every national people's category, look for subcategories, and sift through. scribblingwoman (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have no problem with this being a category which just contains subcategories. If so, it should be labeled as such. If all of the subcategories get deleted (which seems unlikely), I might agree with deleting this category, but I might not. My criteria for keeping a category is:
- It should be useful
- The subject should be studied academically
- Keeping the category should not lead to overcategorization

I think this category meets all three of these criteria, or is borderline. If a category is borderline, and there are users who want to keep it, I think it should be kept unless some harm can be demonstrated. I'd like to see some discussion about how to handle these borderline situations. I see this CFD as two sets of people reading the same guidelines and coming up with different conclusions. That implies that we haven't made the distinctions clear. Perhaps the best way to handle borderline cases is with lists, which seems to be win/win. The information is preserved, and the category is removed. Everybody gets what they need. -- Samuel Wantman 09:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As others have said, this category is overly broad and non-defining, but subcategorisation is not to be welcomed as there is no one scheme that would answer, while multiple schemes would create massive category clutter. The people who are defining this category seem to feel that the legitimacy of their field of interest is under attack, but it is not. It is simply a matter of looking at the category and seeing whether it meets the level of usefulness for navigation required of a category, and this one falls far short of it. Another issue is that the first deletion was correct, and there was no consensus to restore the category. ReeseM 12:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ResseM, the field of literary studies provides a model for categorization of writers, by historical period/nationality or region/genre. True, this means that many writers would need more than one category, but so what? As I said earlier, one could be interested in, say, a 20thc Ugandan woman playwright because of an interest in African literature, drama, contemporary literature, AND/OR women writers. All paths should be there, in my opinion. Re. the previous discussion of this category: that was not, in fact, the first discussion on the subject. There was at least one earlier one and the result of that one was "no consensus." scribblingwoman (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The policy referred to above says that. "Categories should only [my italics] be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right." It does not say they should "always" be created in such circumstances. This one falls down because the category does not in truth match the "field of study". The field of study is women's literary fiction, but this category encompasses every woman writer, from thousands of women journalists, to writers of popular drivel. Dominictimms 17:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are slightly misinformed. Scholars who study women writers do not only study women's fiction. Two of the examples that I listed in my posting, for example, Sarah Trimmer and Hannah More, primarily wrote in didactic genres; they wanted to write instructive texts for children and the poor and texts that criticized the morality of their times (there are many of these today as well). Trimmer, for example, helped shape the definition of children's literature through her periodical The Guardian of Education. Furthermore, within literary studies, scholars tend not to separate "high" literature from "low" literature in the way you are suggesting (that is a remnant of an older way of thinking derived from Matthew Arnold and others; it was ousted in the 1980s in what is sometimes referred to as the "canon wars"). The fact is that many bestselling novels, which you might consider "popular drivel," have had a profound influence on society. One of the most famous examples is perhaps Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin. Awadewit 17:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Popular drivel", as you put it, is also worthy of study: I have lost count of the number of academics I met who have studied Mills & Boon-type novels and the writers thereof. Personally, I quite agree that it's drivel, but its sheer popularity makes it very notable as a genre; producing drivel is not a disqualification for a wikipedia article (mercifully, or else we'd have to delete zilions of articles on politicians of all hues!). Of course writers of populist romantic fiction don't often belong in the same category as Jane Austen, but sub-categorisation solves that problem, by placing them in adjacent but separate parts of the category tree. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep there is no need to delete it. Many articles and news outside of Wikipedia often categorize female authors as a group, like putting Flannery O'Connor, Carson McCullers, and those to discuss about them as a group. This category is particularly useful to identify female writers. Wooyi 02:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep and rename to "Female writers". While although I typically oppose 'labelling' people based on things like gender, there is indeed a great value in being able to easily search through for female writers. I can easily see this being helpful for students researching projects and such. To that end, categorization by gender is very much appropriate. However, I think the name, "Women writers" is somewhat unsightly and smacks of subtle POV, which is why I'd prefer it be listed as "Female writers". (Still, even if it isn't renamed, it's better kept as-is than outright removed) Bladestorm 00:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bladestorm, not sure if you were aware: there was a discussion on the issue of "female" vs. "women" last July. (Do you ever feel like you're in Groundhog's Day? I know I do.) scribblingwoman (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After all the discussion I've had above, and taken a few days to think about, I do not believe that this category is helpful. Consistently used, it would end up on the pages of women like Anne Rice, for whom it is not at all remarkable that they are both women and writers. This is a simplification of the argument I've presented above, which I'd rather not duplicate in full down here. — coel acan — 02:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I disagree about Anne Rice. She writes eroticized gothic thrillers, and as such she is the contemporary representative of a long-standing female tradition in popular literature, a direct descendent of all those nameless writers of gothic potboilers published by Minerva Press in the 18thc. But that aside, I want to say that I appreciate the thought you put into your decision. I'm sorry we weren't able to make a case that convinced you, but respect the care with which you approached the whole discussion. scribblingwoman (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken about Anne Rice. However, there are plenty of other women in modern times and Western countries that my argument would accurately apply to, such as J. K. Rowling. And thanks for taking the time to explain your reasoning in more detail over on your talk page. — coel acan — 04:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, J.K. Rowling? Welfare mum who makes good writing children's literature, another long-standing staple of women's writing? scribblingwoman (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's stretching. Lots of people come out of poverty by writing; that single mothers are disproportionally poor is incidental to her writing. I can keep doing this off the top of my head until I hit someone indisputable, though. Temple Grandin. — coel acan — 05:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But she is not categorized as a writer, but as a biologist. Yes, she writes, but if we followed that logic to its most extreme conclusion we would have to include any woman who did any sort of writing at all. I think editors would be selective; the category would surely not get used for women who write, say, scientific papers. "Women writers" doesn't mean "all women who write anything at all," but "women whose writing is of interest, as writing."

(my point about J.K. Rowling was that there are interesting elements of her biography that are surely inflected by gender, and that she is writing in a mode long practiced by women: writing for young people. Meaning, one could in theory approach her as a "woman writer" if one was so minded.)

Anyway, I'm not trying to hound you. But the conversation is interesting. scribblingwoman (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to echo scribblingwoman's thanks to coelacan for being so thoughtful about this, whilst still disagreeing with your conclusion (I wish that more of the delete votes had been even a fraction as thoughtful). However, your example Temple Grandin is an interesting one: she seems to me to fall into two different sub-classes of non-fiction writer, viz. a scientific class and a personal/experiential class (which may include biography/autobiography, travel writing etc). The extent to which gender is relevant in science writing is perhaps a different subject, but I would have no hesitation in wanting to see Temple Grandin in a sub-category of women writers. She has written about her own experiences of life (and particularly about her own efforts to rethink her circumstances), and although I have not read her book it seems that me that is something where being a woman is a significant issue.
And that in many ways reinforces the point that we should not be too presumptive about how a category like this might be used; there are any reasons why people may be interested in Grandin and her work, and being a woman writer seems to be one of her defining attributes, just being a scientific writer and austistic writer may be other reasons why people would seek her out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you still make compelling arguments. I'm afraid I have not the coffee to keep up with you. =) — coel acan — 20:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As from the extensive discussions above, opinion on this category is highly divided and consensus cannot be reached. The parent category Category:Women writers is already broken down into sub-categories of Category:Women writers by nationality and Women writers by genre, and these sub-categories are already populated. Obviously, some people find the category useful. --MChew 07:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hugely strong keep - what the heck could ever be the reason for deleting this cat? Women play an important and often separate role in writing, just like any other category. Please look at Category:Women by occupation, which has literally hundreds of subcats. What am I missing here? I also implore the admins to ignore any calls for "speedy delete", as they're completely unfounded on policy. Patstuart^talk·edits 02:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are also many !votes to "delete" which either ignore the existence of the relevant guideline WP:CATGRS or reject it out of hand. What's the point in having a guideline if it can just be ignored? Sure, a guideline is not a policy, so it's not binding ... but if it is to be breached, then surely the test should be why it is to be over-ridden in this particular case? If guidelines can simply be rejected out of hand because some editors don't like them, then what's the point in having a guideline rather than an essay? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's no getting away from the fact that this category is just an anti-male whinge, as is the whole "academic subject", as is the so-called guideline. The way that small groups people can fix policy to suit their bias if they are well organized and get in first, is one of the fundamental weaknesses of Wikipedia, and people who are prepared to do such things should have their efforts ignored. If that is a lost cause, so is Wikipedia:neutrality. Wikipedia doesn't work, because it is widely known to be a liberal publication. The fact that liberals happen to predominate in the user base may be self-perpetuating given Wikipedia's mob rule, but that doesn't mean it is right, or that the results are even in line with Wikipedia's own principles, it just mean the whole project is undermined by a self inflicted and probably permanent hypocrisy. It claims to be neutral, but it isn't. That's why it's just about worthless on serious subjects, and I mainly use the golf section. Annandale 22:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Reiterating my previous statements on this subject, this is a highly important field in academia and history. The reason for this is that women writers are a distinct, separate group, in today's society as well as hundreds of years ago. Those who are arguing that the category will be too broad should take another look around. Wikipedia has a category for African American writers, which encompasses people as broad and seemingly unrelated as Frederick Douglass and bell hooks -- why not this, a category which will ultimately hold both (god forbid) Rowling and Wollstonecraft? María: (habla conmigo) 01:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are oversimplifying the issues. I did not say it would simply be too broad. I said it would include people, like Rowling or Grandin, for whom it is not notable that they are both women and writers. We should only categorize notable intersections. So it may be sane to have Category:Iraqi women writers, but it does not make any sense to act as though it is remarkable that a woman in the modern West would be a writer. It's no more notable than Category:Women who drive cars in these places. — coel acan — 21:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was not referring to your comments in particular, coelacan, and I apologize if you thought I was in some way being backhanded. If I were to make a comment to one of your previous statements, I would have replied directly rather than begin a new thread. One of the major objections to this category has always been its broadness, and that is what I was addressing. No toes stepped on, I hope. María: (habla conmigo) 21:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's cool. But my arguments are of the "it's too broad" variety, just with caveat. Some of the national subcategories make sense. It's the parent category that is too broad. — coel acan — 21:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But my understanding is that if one is to have subcategories, there needs to be a parent category, correct? Or am I mistaken? scribblingwoman (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: French Wikipedia has the category: "femme de lettres." I am not adept enough at languages to check other wikis, but arguably the French literary tradition, along with the German, has had, historically, the most cross-fertilization with the English of all foreign language traditions.— scribbling woman 13:18, 7 April 2007 (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.

Category:Looney Tunes directors

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. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an improper categorization of people by project. Otto4711 20:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet another performer by performance type category. Doczilla 23:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and many similar discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Honbicot 19:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 01:17, 25 March 2007 (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.

Category:James Bond directors

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. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an improper categorization by project. Otto4711 20:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet another performer by performance type category. Doczilla 23:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CalJW 02:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 01:18, 25 March 2007 (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.

Category:Historians of religions

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. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historians of religions to Category:Historians of religion

Merge - redundant category. Otto4711 19:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I have a question, for anyone who can answer it. Is this sort of obvious merge something that needs to be handled by a CFD and a five day waiting period, or is it sufficient and acceptable to just stick up a {{category redirect}} and be done with it? — coel acan — 22:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Osomec 22:59, 23 March 2007 (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.

Category:Ski resorts in Australia

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. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ski resorts in Australia to Category:Ski areas and resorts in Australia

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, for consistency with other by-country categories, and (hopefully) forthcoming renaming of the parent category. See other ongoing discussions:

2007_March_20#Category:Ski_resorts

2007_March_20#Category:Ski_resorts_in_Canada

2007_March_20#Category:Ski_resorts_in_Scotland

2007_March_19#Category:Ski_resorts_in_Serbia

All of these should be made consistent with the numerous other "Ski areas and resorts of ..." categories. --Seattle Skier (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Osomec 23:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Honbicot 19:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom for consistency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:04, 25 March 2007 (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.

Category:Mountains and hills of Leinster

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. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These categories are redundant given the existing by-county classification (Category:Mountains of Cork, Category:Mountains of Kerry, etc.). Their only useful purpose could be as an intermediate in the hierarchy between Category:Mountains of the Republic of Ireland and the county categories, but there are few enough counties for that not to be necessary. There is no Category:Mountains of Ulster, which might have complicated things by including the mountains and hills of Northern Ireland. A request for comment at Wikiproject British and Irish hills has produced no disagreement so far. Stemonitis 19:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge all to Category:Mountains of the Republic of Ireland. Since there are only 26 counties in the Republic of Ireland, there is no need for an intermediate layer of categories; and, per nom, the set if kept should logically be completed by a Category:Mountains and hills of Ulster, which would cause confusion as a cross-border province. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Category:Mountains of the Republic of Ireland, but it might be worth adding "and hills" as per the English categories. Choalbaton 01:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 25#Mountains_of_Ireland_and_subcats --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Category:Mountains of the Republic of Ireland, but I agree with adding "and hills" to the category title. (Sarah777 01:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Comment — all of the mountain articles are already or should be) in subcategories of Category:Mountains of the Republic of Ireland (by county), so am I right in thinking that these "merge" votes are effectively "delete" votes? --Stemonitis 08:23, 26 March 2007 (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.

Category:Murdered Iraqi children

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: renominate the entire "murdered children" tree instead. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A singly-occupied category, seemingly created to have further categorization of single article. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it was for just one person. Hiddenhearts Sign Here! My Talk 19:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to say "Upmerge to Category:Iraqi murder victims" but the only article is already included there. Dugwiki 19:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it along with the rest of the Category:Murdered children tree. Otto4711 19:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of the Category:Murdered children tree; this a category with, sadly a lot of potential for growth. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's the size of the parent that determines whether a subcategory is needed, not the size of the subcategory. Osomec 00:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per (talk). Honbicot 19:19, 24 March 2007 (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.

Category:Coptic saints

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. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Coptic saints to Category:Coptic Orthodox saints

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Propose changing name because I had not thought that there was a Coptic Catholic Church, and category was created to specifically list saints of the Coptic Orthodox Church. Coptic Catholic saints will fit in the Category: Catholic saints. John Carter 18:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, for disambiguation. — coel acan — 22:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. AshbyJnr 01:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Hawkestone 16:41, 25 March 2007 (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.

Category:Extinct Rivers

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. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Extinct Rivers to Category:Former rivers

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Capitalization and correcting name to be in line with similar categories. – Swid ^{(talk | edits)} 17:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nom. Carlossuarez46 23:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Dominictimms 17:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Capitalization should be fixed, but for better or for worse, the technical term is "extinct river", not "former river". Dekimasu よ! 09:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Doesn't "former" imply that the person or thing described is now something else (as in "former child star," &c.), whereas "extinct" makes it clear that it no longer exists? Also, though I have no first-hand knowledge of the subject, if "extinct" is the accepted term for rivers that are, er, extinct, then that is the term that should be used. scribblingwoman (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2007 (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.

Category:Narcissism

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. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose DeleteThis seems a totally superfluous and irrelevant category. Since listing for MFD (my error) an anon AOL user has suddenly started frantically adding some rather bizarre, and often totally irrelevant, articles to this categorySpecial:Contributions/172.191.147.254, but I don't honestly think that makes it any less superfluous and meaningless. Zeraeph 17:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subjective, potentially libelous category. Doczilla 23:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I hadn't even thought of that aspect, though it had occurred to me that, in many cases, inclusion of an article would be entirely pejorative, as well as misleading --Zeraeph 23:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restrict - seems to be doing a fine job of bringing together articles on the topic of narcissism. I assume the concern is that the category might get added to a living person's biography, triggering WP:BLP concerns. So note in the category description that the category is not to be added to articles for people. Otto4711 23:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThere is a further concern that the category might, and already has, been added to articles to which it is of no real relevance and where the addition of the category will prov misleading.--Zeraeph 03:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is an argument for monitoring the category, not deleting it. If the editor persists and it rises to the level of disruption or vandalism then steps can be taken to prevent it. Otto4711 04:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but that still brings me straight back to my original point, which is, what on earth do we actually need a Category:Narcissism for? --Zeraeph 07:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This is a category with limited scope and concerns mentioned above also noted. I suppose it is no surprise that narcissism would want a category all to itself! --Vince 12:40, 24 March 2007 (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.

Category:People claiming to have psychokinetic abilities

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: I'd say there is consensus for renaming this because the current name is awkward, but no consensus to rename to "purported" since that could be said to imply falsehood. I would suggest renominating with a better new name, if any can be found. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People claiming to have psychokinetic abilities to Category:Purported psychokinetics

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - to match other recently renamed categories on similar topics (purported psychics, purported mediums). Would not be opposed to deletion. Otto4711 15:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - weren't all categories with "-kineticist" and "-kinetics" changes to "with -kinesis" in the fictional character categories because the other endings weren't real suffixes or something?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering that as well. Is psychokinetic properly used as a noun, and if so is it used to mean a person with the power? --Minderbinder 16:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to "Purported psychokinetic people" if there is a strong objection to using "paychokinetic" as a noun. Otto4711 20:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: the term "purported" carries a presumption of falsehood, and the category system should not be used to convey POVs. A discussion of whether or not it it is possible or a person to have psychokinetic abilities belongs in the category text or in an article, not in the categ name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't personally have a strong preference one way or another between "purported" and "claimed". However, I do think that all similar categories should use the same naming scheme. So whichever phrase is used it the categories in this scheme which don't use it should be renamed to match. Dugwiki 19:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "Purported" carries the assumption of falsehood. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per purported psychics. "Purported" does not carry an assumption of falsehood. It is a neutral term neither supporting nor denying the claim. Honestly, I think it's kinder than "claim". Doczilla 23:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That may well be true on a strict understanding of pure and educated OED usage, but I think it does carry negative connotations to the ordinary person. Choalbaton 01:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Category:Purported psychokinetics or Category:Purported psychokinetic people, whichever is grammatically preferred (they both sound okay to me). I don't think anything has changed in the language since the last CFDs. — coel acan — 02:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Purported doesn't point to the claimant, here it is self-claimed, quite different. If I claim (i.e., purport) that George Bush has psychokinetic powers then I can add him to the purported category; what's more interesting is if he were to claim it. Carlossuarez46 23:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Purported psychokinetics - "Purported" is as close to a neutral word as possible in this case. "Alleged" may also be appropriate here. Dr. Submillimeter 20:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My copy of the Short OED offers neutral definitions, but for example Merriam Webster says "to have the often specious appearance of being, intending, or claiming (something implied or inferred)"[2]. "often specious" is not my idea of neutrality!
Alleged seems inappropriate, because it implies that that someone else is alleging that the person has psychokinetic powers, whereas in the cases I am aware of, the subject personally claims those powers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In my paper version of Merriam Webster, the definition using "specious" is one of several given for "purported". Most of the others definitions seem neutral. Dr. Submillimeter 09:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object. "Psychokinetic" is always an adjective, never a noun. With no defined value, "pyschokinetics" is just as likely to mean "the study of psychokinesis" as "a person with psychokinetic powers". This would seem to exclude the proposed title from consideration. Dekimasu よ! 09:18, 27 March 2007 (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.

Category:Mountain ranges of Central America and the Caribbean

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 (keep). The problem doesn't seem to be this category as much as the problem of organizing mountains by continents, when it is questionable if islands are part of the continents. Perhaps, the "Mountains by continent" should be renamed to something like "Mountains by global region" so that Islands can be included. It is not unusual (in the U.S.) to separate North American from Central American when talking about continents, and it makes about as much sense as separating Europe from Asia. -- Samuel Wantman 08:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the "mountains by continent" category scheme, except that "Central America + Caribbean" is not a continent. Note that every mountain range in here is also already in a category by country. >Radiant< 14:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Grouping Central America and the Caribbean together like this is inappropriate. The categorization by country is probably better here anyway. Dr. Submillimeter 15:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've recategorized it now into Category:Mountain ranges of North America (since Central America and the Caribbean are generally considered part of North America) instead of Category:Mountain ranges by continent, which was incorrect. I think we should keep this category, since there are mountain ranges on some of the Caribbean islands (e.g. Carbet Mountains) which need a "mountain ranges" category instead of just being lumped into the mountains-by-country categories. Perhaps it could be renamed Category:Mountain ranges of the Caribbean, if a separate "Category:Mountain ranges of ..." were to be created for each Central American country (only Category:Mountain ranges of Costa Rica currently exists). It's much simpler to keep the current category as is. --Seattle Skier (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - By definition, the Caribbean islands are not be part of the North American continent or any continent. A category for mountain ranges for the Caribbean itself would be OK. Dr. Submillimeter 14:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: I'm not sure where you get your definition of North America, but any standard definition includes all of the Caribbean islands, even those (e.g. Trinidad) located just off the South American coast. Merrian-Webster's Geographical Dictionary (3rd ed., 1997, 1361 pp.) includes the Caribbean in North America, both in the text entry and the adjacent map. WP's own North America article also includes the Caribbean in both article text and map. --Seattle Skier (talk) 05:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - Actually, the discussion at continent under "Definitions and application" mirrors our discussion here. We are both correct. I still recommend placing the mountains of the Caribbean Islands in their own category anyway. Dr. Submillimeter 09:09, 25 March 2007 (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.

Category:Airports in the Middle East and Category:Airports in Central America and the Caribbean

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, though I'd suggest that the parent categories be renamed from "X by continent" to something like "X by global region", as adding islands to continents is questionable. -- Samuel Wantman 08:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both part of the "airports by continent" categorization schema. Apart from the question if that schema is really all that useful considering we have "airports by country" already, I'm quite sure that "Middle East" and "Central America + Caribbean" aren't continents. We shouldn't start categorizing by semi-arbitrary groupings of countries (e.g. "airports of Western Europe", "airports of the Basque Peninsula" etc). >Radiant< 14:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I particularly find the Middle East confusing for categorization. The area that may be called the "Middle East" is highly variable; it could be confined to the southwest section of Asia, or it could extend from Libya to Pakistan. I also do not understand why Central America and the Caribbean are grouped together. Dr. Submillimeter 15:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Temporarily, I've recategorized Category:Airports in Central America and the Caribbean under Category:Airports in North America (since Central America and the Caribbean are generally considered part of North America) instead of Category:Airports by continent, which was incorrect. No such fix is possible for Category:Airports in the Middle East, since it contains countries in Asia and Africa right now. Unlike the "mountain ranges" issue above, the airports seem best served by having only the "Airports by country" and strict "Airports by continent" classifications, with no arbitrary sub-continental or semi-continental categories like the two in question here. --Seattle Skier (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all listed and the by continent ones. The by country category is sufficient. Vegaswikian 19:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as requested. Ravenhurst 22:51, 23 March 2007 (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.

Category:Lists of minor characters

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 per nom. -- Samuel Wantman 08:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be "minor fictional characters". >Radiant< 14:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match parent category. Not sure the distinction is truly necessary though, since nothing comes to mind that would ever fit into a category call lists of minor non-fictional characters. --tjstrf talk 16:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match parent category Yeah, the category names should match. Although I have to wonder, isn't "non-fictional character" kind of an oxymoron? Dugwiki 19:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename, and consider moving parent cat afterward. The distinction between a fictional character and a non-fictional character is minute and basically irrelevant as far as most stories are concerned. In stories that mix the two, the logical article structure is almost always a simple "list of characters," not one list of fictional characters and another list of non-fictional characters. Thus, not only is this unnecessary verbiage, it's also inaccurate if there are any non-fictional characters in these lists. SnowFire 21:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you would find in say, South Park.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Everything else uses the designation "fictional characters that can do/are/belong to/share in common X"(see prefix index), so if you want that move to be made you're going to have your work cut out for you. Besides, what you are describing is already covered in a category called Category:Fictional characters based on real people. --tjstrf talk 00:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fair enough. I'm not sure how or when that got put in place, but consensus can change and all that. SnowFire 02:00, 24 March 2007 (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.

Category:Gay porn stars

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: nomination withdrawn, by message on my talk page. Note that because the |new CFD was created before this one was closed, the new CFD was speedily closed as a duplicate.
For the future, folks, if the nominator wants to withdraw a nomination, please be sure to make your intentions clear by putting "nomination withdrawn" clearly in bold at the start of the comment seeking withdrawal, and don't hide the word "withdraw" in the middle of a discursive paragraph.
There appears to be variety of different proposals under consideration here, some of which involve a major change to the category's purpose. I therefore want to suggest to all involved that the name be discussed at Category talk:Gay porn stars, to clarify the options before returning to CFD with a new proposal or set of proposals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. Please see the new nomination discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 25#Category:Gay porn stars.—Chidom ^talk 19:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Category: Gay porn stars to Category: Male performers in gay porn films~~ * Rename New name avoids the possibility of misinterpreting the category to indicate a performer's sexual orientation and brings the category in line with the renaming of main article page: Male performers in gay porn films—Chidom ^talk 11:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The List of male performers in gay porn films article name change came about partially as a result of names being added of men who had never been in a gay porn film but had appeared on gay porn websites. The list was/is difficult enough to maintain without broadening its scope and making sourcing additions more difficult. There was also a discussion about including other sexes in the list, which has always been a list of men. Since the category can be (and probably should be) broader than a list, I'm withdrawing this nomination and changing the nomination to "People appearing in gay pornography". That will cover any sex in any form of pornography—film, magazine, website, etc., and removes the necessity to use a further descriptor such as "star", "actor", "model", etc.—some of which are arguably inapplicable (not everyone is a gay porn film can act, for example—nor do they necessarily need to). The new nomination can be found here.—Chidom ^talk 04:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment the article is List of male performers in gay porn films. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per previous discussion. No one's going to mix this up, no one's stupid enough to think this necessarily means "porn stars who are gay".~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, we already discussed this. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category name and main article name should match I don't have a preference between one name or the other, but a category's name should almost always match its associated main article. So if the category name is kept, then the main article should be renamed, and vice versa. Dugwiki 19:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per previous discussion. Gay porn stars who are gay should also be categorized in the appropriate LGBT actor category. Otto4711 19:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as "gay" refers to the pornography, not the star and that is not clear from the current category name. If not renamed, then it should only contain porn stars who are gay, and Category:Bisexual porn stars should be created for porn stars who are bisexual (as subcategories of Category:Porn stars refer to the star, not the porn). — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That complicates things because a lot of the time sexual orientation is never disclosed. If they're actually gay, then Category:Gay people from such and such a place will also be on their article.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should definitely be renamed. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 19:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - consensus can change, Chidom has changed their opinion on this since December. The new name would significantly reduce the possibility of confusion. I've found that when someone says "no one's stupid enough to think...", that it generally isn't overly hard to find someone who thinks along those lines. ~ Bigr Tex 18:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how about a rename to Category:Stars of gay porn? Carlossuarez46 23:30, 24 March 2007 (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.

Category:New Zealand playwrights

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. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy: (Chidom)

Category:New Zealand playwrights to Category:New Zealand dramatists and playwrights Haddiscoe 19:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on the basis that category names should not be tautological. Dramatist redirects to Playwright. If this change is being proposed for the sake of consistency with categories for other countries, then it is the others which need to be changed. dramatic 09:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Should the other categories by changed to "dramatists" or "playwright". The standard form solves that problem. Casperonline 15:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To 'playwright' as the significantly more common term. The use of the conjunction 'and' implies that they are not one and the same, whereas every dictionary definition I can find defines dramatist as a playwright. If you insist on both, then 'Dramatists or Playwrights' would make more sense. dramatic 09:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Basic speedy. The reasons for using this compound name are pretty obvious and were agreed on years ago. CalJW 02:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the discussion on that is where?...dramatic 09:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, and per convention of Category:Dramatists and playwrights by nationality. If someone wants to challenge that convention, then it should be done by a group nomination for Category:Dramatists and playwrights by nationality and its sub-categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename Osomec 15:00, 23 March 2007 (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.

Category:Underpopulated Politics categories

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. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy: (Chidom)

Category:Underpopulated Politics categories to Category:Underpopulated politics categories Cloachland 14:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on the grounds that the two similarly named categories for sports and music have been moved from speedy. All three should have the same result. Otto4711 03:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearcut speedy. Abberley2 12:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meets the speedy renaming criteria. Casperonline 15:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The others will be renamed to the same form, but this is a speedy regardless. CalJW 02:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename Osomec 15:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per WP:CSD C2. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 23 March 2007 (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.

Category:Recipients of the US Air Medal

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. -- Samuel Wantman 08:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This had an earlier discussion here, which yielded no consensus. Suggested options include (1) rename to Category:Recipients of the United States Air Medal to avoid abbrev, (2) rename to Category:Recipients of the Air Medal since there aren't any other air medals worldwide, and (3) delete as a low-level and not particularly notable award. >Radiant< 10:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Recipients of the US Air Medal to Category:Recipients of the Air Medal if kept. Unsure about deleting based on the late research from the previous nomination. Note updated since there was an out of process rename during the discussion. The US needs to be dropped. It is not a part of the name and it is also an abbreviation. Vegaswikian 19:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For anyone else that might be confused, the listed category was already merged into Category:Recipients of the US Air Medal based on the initial discussion. I have no preference on a name for the category. ~ BigrTex 18:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, you mean it was merged into Category:Recipients of the US Air Medal while the discussion here was open? Vegaswikian 20:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll just paste my comment from the previous discussion: The Air Medal is a low level award, and not particularly rare or notable. The article itself says:

The Air Medal is awarded to any person who, while serving in any capacity in or with the Armed Forces of the United States, shall have distinguished himself/herself by meritorious achievement while participating in aerial flight.

Taking out the qualifier "in aerial flight" and the criteria reads like the criteria for a Meritorious Service Medal. In fact, look at where it is in the order of precedence - Inter-service decorations of the United States military. Having a category for it is little better than having a category for "Recipients of the Army/Air Force/Navy Commendation ribbon." It's not ununsual at all for a pilot to receive a total number of Air Medals in the double digits. David Hackworth received 34, and wasn't even a pilot.--Nobunaga24 11:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I concur with the above, so delete. >Radiant< 11:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above about importance of this award. Vegaswikian 22:15, 28 March 2007 (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.

Category:The Bold and the Beautiful cast members

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. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a recreation in some way of a previously listified and deleted performer by performance category. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 09:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per other performer by performance categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another performer by performance category. Doczilla 23:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Carlossuarez46 23:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 01:23, 25 March 2007 (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.

Category:Manga locations

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. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Manga locations to Category:Anime and manga locations

Nominator's Rationale: Rename to match parent and sibling categories Category:Fictional elements from anime and manga Category:Anime and manga weapons, and Category:Anime and manga characters --tjstrf talk 09:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Looks right to me. — coel acan — 02:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. At least some articles in the category deal with both anime and manga (Naruto, Bleach). –Pomte 17:15, 26 March 2007 (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.

Category:Television festival

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 rename. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Television festival to Category:Television festivals

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, pluralize --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 08:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename Osomec 15:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Festivals. If there's no Television festival article, why bother with a category with two articles? --Vossanova ^o< 16:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename It now contains 7 articles, and googling shows that there are plenty more television festivals out there. Ideally category:Festivals should be fully diffused by both country and subject. Choalbaton 01:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, if I would have thought this category would be eternally empty, I wouldn't have put it up for a rename. I think it has potential and shouldn't be merged/deleted. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 11:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename. We have other kinds of Category:festivals listed -- Art, Opera, Theatre, Literary, Music, Film, many with fewer entries than this category. Television should remain. ◉ ghoti 18:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Rename:As per above. - AKeen 14:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Speedy Rename per above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Speedy Rename per above. Kevlar67 02:49, 29 March 2007 (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.

Category:Uncategorized

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 (without 'all', per request and standard), and need I point out the oxymoron? >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Uncategorized to Category:All uncategorized pages

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, this category is named too similarly to its parent category, Category:Category needed. I propose that Category:Uncategorized be made into a soft redirect to Category:Category needed, and that the current population of Uncategorized be moved to Category:All uncategorized pages, which would clarify the contents and purpose of this category. Resurgent insurgent 08:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - maybe instead Category:Uncategorized pages? I question the need for the word "all" in the name of the new category. Would support changing the current name, though. John Carter 14:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I feel that omitting the word "all" from Category:Uncategorized pages would still make the category look too much like Category:Category needed. Resurgent insurgent 14:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: What is the difference between Category:Uncategorized and Category:Category needed? (Aside from that, "all" isn't necessary, as John Carter suggests.) — coel acan — 02:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Uncategorized is a template-populated category which is meant to hold all pages that are waiting for a "real" category to be added. Category:Category needed is the parent category that also holds categories for uncategorised pages sorted by month. Resurgent insurgent 14:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see also discussion of January 4th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 20:50, 24 March 2007 (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.

Category:Pagan texts

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. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as ill-defined and arbitrary categorisation. Although this cat nowhere defines just what a 'pagan text' is supposed to be, by its use thus far it would seem to embrace any religous or spiritual text outside of the Abrahamic tradition. This would include such an array of unrelated documents and religions that it could hardly be considered useful (if it is not actually a rather arbitrary ethnocentric division). cjllw | TALK 06:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete,This category seems completely ethnocentrical. What exactly defines a pagan text? its being non-christian? Then the majority of the worlds religious texts qualify for inclusion in this category. The term "pagan" is normally a value statement meaning "barbaric" and "non christian" - that is not grounds for a category in wikipedia.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 07:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 00:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subcategoryu "neopagan texts" makes sense since that is a name neopagans use. But this category suffers from all the problems outlined by the nominator. — coel acan — 02:11, 24 March 2007 (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.

Category:Marvel Animation

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. >Radiant< 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Marvel Comics animation. -Sean Curtin 04:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support use of the full name.—Chidom ^talk 11:19, 23 March 2007 (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.

Category:Marvel Animated Universe

Moved to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy; change of case is non-controversial.

Category:Fantasy worlds

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was procedural close, discussion moved to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 24#Category:Fantasy worlds. Resurgent insurgent 14:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per discussion for Category:Fictional settings here. The only distinction between these two categories is that one is general-purpose, while the other is limited to fantasy fiction. -Sean Curtin 04:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - Category:Fictional settings is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_22#Category:Fictional_settings. The nominator may have wanted to nominate another category instead, in which case he should probably create a new entry on this page so as to avoid confusion.
- Comment I believe he meant to nominate Category:Fantasy worlds instead, per this edit. I have changed the nomination text based on this assumption, but the nominator can correct it if I'm wrong. Resurgent insurgent 09:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right. New entry entered today. -Sean Curtin 23:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.