Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 2#Category:Anti-Muslim sentiment
= August 2 =
== {{{2|Category:Environment of Clackmannan}}} ==
== {{{2|Category:Golden age of hip hop}}} ==
== {{{2|Category:Ambiguity}}} ==
== {{{2|Category:Defunct Orkney organisations}}} ==
==[[:Category:Hong Kong television newsreaders and journalists]]==
== Prehistoric mammals ==
==[[:Category:Stoner films]]==
== [[:Category:British female MPs]] ==
===NEW discussion===
- Delete per Landolitan. Maggie Thatcher, for example, was in no obvious need of a wee crutch to assist her to public notice. This vote is a clarification of my previous two votes: get rid of the whole lot. (I only created the Eng, NI, Scot and Welsh subcats because I assumed that the female MPs format had consensus support. Now I see that this method of discrimination is not egalitarian, I have changed my opinion. "When the facts change, I change my mind – what do you do, sir?" - JM Keynes.) --Mais oui! 22:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Close CFD - I think it is useful to subdivide by party affiliation, gender, geography of seat and parliamentary session - to do these simultaneously will take effort, but with multi-categorisation can be done. The system needs a complete overhaul, and doing it piece-by-piece through CFD is a nightmare, before we've even agreed on the system we're aiming for. Can we close these CFD's for now, and carry on discussion at Category_talk:British MPs? All the necessary CFM/D-ing can be done en masse at the end. Aquilina 22:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete these anachronistic sexist categories. ReeseM 22:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Merge all female national subcats up to the relevant national Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from XXX constituencies. Delete :Category:British female MPs. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete/merge all female specific categories. There must have been hundreds of female MPs. These categories would have been notable in 1950, but they aren't now. Osomec 12:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment By my calculations there have been 297 female MPs ever, of which 128 were elected in 2005. Given that there are over 650 MPs now, there are more male MPs currently sitting in Parliament than there have ever been female MPs. As to the point about the 1950s, at the very least there should be classification of the first female MPs when there were just a few dozen at any one time; and anyway, in 1966 just 26 women were elected our of just 80 candidates, so the extreme discrepancy continued right up until very, very recently (and it's still less than 25%). Martín (saying/doing) 12:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and rename main category, merge subcats by nation. I would be happy to close CFD and consider this as part of the wider category discussion, as User:Aquilina. But I think in this case gender is a valid and useful method of classification but needs to be separated from other forms of categorisation (see my comments in older discussions). The category should be renamed :Category:Female members of the UK House of Commons as suggested at Category talk:British MPs Martín (saying/doing) 12:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Close CFD. This process has become a complete mess, with comments moved, revised, etc, so that it is no longer clear what is being proposed or opposed. Those who commented before last night's restructuring were asked review their comments, and some appear to have done so. Now Cactus.man has created yet another new discussion, and with all this changing, I cannot see any way that the discussion can reach a clear outcome: e.g. my original proposal is no longer at the top of this discussion.
- alternatively, if discussion not closed, Vote to keep main category, upmerge subcats.
The :Category:British female MPs is of important encyclopedic usage. See comments below, from one of the earlier discussions, especially the extract below from from Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality. There is clear precedent for the maintenance of this category: see :Category:Female life peers, and its most certainly NOT sexist to categorise the ongoing historical and ongoing under-representation of minority women in politics. (in response to Osomec, I etimate that there have been about 200-250 in total. As recently as the 1987 election, there were only 41, and the 1997 general election was the first time that women topped 10% of MPs: [http://www.fawcett.wholething.co.uk/documents/representation%20-%20April%202006.doc The Fawcett Society's briefing] counts 23 in 1983 (3.5%), 41 in 1987 (6.3%), 60 in 1992 (9.2%), 120 in 1997 (18.2%), 118 in 2001 (17.9%), 128 in 2005 (19.8%).)
As the gender, race and sexuality guidelines note "historically the vast majority of political leaders have been male by default", and that's why categories such as this category and :Category:Women in the United States Congress have value.
Similar interest drives classification of other under-represented groups, such as :Category:British Asian politicians --BrownHairedGirl 13:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
----
===ORIGINAL earlier discussion===
- Merge, unnecessary subdivision, creating category clutter. MPs are subdivided by nation (England, Wales etc); this sub-sub-category is an excessive subdivision. Retain these MPs in :Category:British female MPs. --BrownHairedGirl 15:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Merge, as nom, to reduce clutter and because if this category is to be useful, it needs to list all female MPs together.
Oh and the new name is also better.Martín (saying/doing) 15:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
*Conditional Merge - merge, or populate both levels, to facilitate easy subdivision of the supercategory for other equally useful purposes. Aquilina 17:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC) -recommenting below after mix-up
- Merge. The parliament of which these women are members is the UK parliament, it is not itself subdivided by nation. --ajn (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep - if parent category kept - the English, Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh cats are all just as important to their respective hierarchies as the UK one is to its - but I would rather that the whole lot were deleted.- see below --Mais oui! 20:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
----
===ORIGINAL later discussion===
Delete, unnecessary subdivision, creating category clutter. These articles are all dual-categorised anyway in the parent category, so no Merge is necessary. Discriminatory: there is no :Category:British male MPs and nor should there be.- see below Mais oui! 15:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and rename to :Category:Female members of the UK House of Commons. It is useful to have a list of female MPs who have sat in the UK Parliament, given that there have been fewer female MPs ever than there are total current MPs. It is not discriminatory as these MPs should be dual categorised in the parent category, as WP:SUBCAT. I hope that this is not a revenge nomination for the CFD nomination below - gender, geography, party and term are all valid ways of categorising MPs, as we have tried to discuss at Category talk:British MPs, but we shouldn't mix them up - we don't want :Category:Female Labour MPs for Reading or whatever, just separate hierarchies for these different systems. Martín (saying/doing) 16:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
:*We recently deleted :Category:Women by nationality, and for very good reason. This is just another manifestation of that. --Mais oui! 16:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
::"It is useful to have a list of female MPs who have sat in the UK Parliament" - categories are not lists! If you would find it useful to have a "list" then please create an article called List of female MPs who have sat in the UK Parliament, or similar title. Please read Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. --Mais oui! 16:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
:::You are right to point out my sloppy use of the word 'list', and yes a list would be useful still, by date elected. But if categories are used to order subjects by notable facts, then I still think that, lamentably, being female is a notable and pertinent fact about a Member of Parliament. So it should stay. Also, if categories are helpful ways to navigate between subjects using a notable feature of those subjects, then I think this category is again worth keeping. It seems a pity not to have addressed this first at Category talk:British MPs, where I had briefly mentioned this subject. Martín (saying/doing) 16:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Note the following text from Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality:
::Whenever possible, categories should not be gendered. A gender-specific category should only be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic. For example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed, but a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest. That category, however, does not need to be balanced directly against a "Male heads of government" category, as historically the vast majority of political leaders have been male by default. Both male and female heads of government should continue to be filed in the appropriate gender-neutral role category (e.g. Presidents, Monarchs, Prime Ministers, Governors General.)
:The same considerations apply here. MPs have historically been male, and until the last decade of the twentieth century, female MPs were a rarity. Whatever view anyone takes on the merits of the gender of legislators, it is just as much a matter of "special encyclopedic interest" as the gender of heads of government. --BrownHairedGirl 18:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
:Warning: Mais oui, I find it hard to accept that this nomination is in good faith, for the following reasons:
:* It was made immediately after the nomination to upmerge the subcats of this category.
:*It was initially posted in replacement of the nomination above, and only reposted here ater I had removed it. Removing a CFM discussion looks like vandalism, and I unable to se how it could have been done accidentally. (note later: correction: sorry, your CFD overwrote the link, not the CFM itself)
:*The sub-categories of :Category:British female MPs were all created by you. Why are you proposing the deletion of a category which you subdivided and helped to populate?
:If this is not a disruptive CFD, please explain why you suddenly decided now to make this nnomination. --BrownHairedGirl 17:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 7#Category:Female_life_peers_to_Category:Life_peers may be relevant here. --BrownHairedGirl 18:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- "sorry, your CFD overwrote the link, not the CFM itself" - wrong: my cfd nomination "overwrote" nothing whatsover. Grow up. --Mais oui! 20:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
:*"overwrote" is probably the wrong term: obscured or "hijacked might have been better". You created new a CFD with the same name as the CFM just created, so that the links pointed your new CFD rather than to the original one. Still no answer to the questoon, why did you make this nomination now, when you were involved in discussions shortly after this category was created? It's a legitimate CFD, but the timing is puzzling. --BrownHairedGirl 22:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
::*Wrong: Wikipedia software automatically creates a CFD header with exactly the same name as the cat you nominate for deletion. I nominated :Category:British female MPs for deletion, therefore Wikipedia automatically created a new header called British female MPs. Thank goodness you are not a politician: you would not last 5 minutes. --Mais oui! 22:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Female MPs are no longer notable for their gender. Landolitan 21:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 page.