The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: I found this odd category filed under the Category:WikiProject Religion as if it was a category of creation scientists (which would be valid). But, looking at the contents, they are all user pages, not articles. So, in the vein of Category:Wikipedians by philosophy, this should be renamed to reflect the fact that the category doesn't contain information about creation science but is a category for Wikipedians. LizRead!Talk! 21:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename per nom. No doubt most should not be categorized as "scientists". Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2014 (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:Biota of Overseas departments and territories of France[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: These categories group wildlife etc by political geography - e.g. this category has two subcats - one for spiders in an island in the Indian Ocean and the other for spiders in a part of South America (the connection being that both are French-administered territories outside of the European continent). I've seen no evidence that spiders know or care about the degree of administrative autonomy the human population of their territory has. These categories also cause the articles (e.g. about penguins) to be in Category:Environment of France and hence in Category:Environment of Europe.
For info: These categories were created by the same editor who brought us categories such as "Spiders of Austria" (CFD). DexDor (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all -- The overseas territories (formerly colonies) of France are scattered all over the world. Even if we keep a category for France itself (which has recently been under discussion), there can be no justification for such a deverse category. Technically (or politically) they are part of France, but that does not really help. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2014 (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:Law enforcement museums and memorials[edit]
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.
Support - nor are they even similar things. Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overwhelmingly support!!!-when I created this cat 7 years ago, both were pretty sparse-nice to see they have filled out so nicely. Any way to fast-track the split?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale This is an award category, for something that is not a defining award for the people involved. We already have a list article on it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This seems to be an award category. No need to listify as there is a list. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete (as noted, no indication in article that sole article was a novelist). Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This category violates the last rung rule. We have not agreed to split novelists by language into gendered categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But we don't categorise novelists by language at all, do we? Category:Novelists by language. Category:English novelists includes novelists from England, not novelists who write in English. Category:Novelists by nationality is split by gender. OTOH we indeed have Category:Writers by language and this isn't split by gender. Makes no sense to me. BTW I agree that "Scottish Gaelic women novelists" describes women who write in the Scottish Gaelic language, not Scottish women who write in Gaelic (or women of a "Scottish Gaelic" nationality, whatever that might be). Thincat (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just Delete - per the article she has never actually written a novel! Adequately categorized otherwise. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename, despite the listing of this category at WP:CATNAME#Socio-cultural_topics. The contents are by country rather than nationality, i.e. "Classical music in Foo" rather than "Fooian classical music". Moreover, those are correctly named, as their contents are predominantly about performance in each country rather than music written in each country. The nominated category therefore belongs in Category:Music by country rather than the present parent Category:Music by nationality. – FayenaticLondon 13:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
As with Classical music (above), most subcats are about performers by country. However, most direct member articles are about compositions by nationality – or, in some cases, language, which is closely related. Therefore it is desirable to have separate categories in each of Category:Music by country and Category:Music by nationality. – FayenaticLondon 15:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Obvious when one looks at the content. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I think opera by language would be more useful since there are lots of issues with opera composers whose nationality is ambiguous or changed over the course of their career (e.g. Stravinsky), or whose original nationality changed (think of operas composed in countries belonging to the former Soviet Union). -- kosboot (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are not talking about Category:Operas by language (with 47 subcats) here at all, nor are there composer sub-cats for most of the categories under this one. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - makes sense. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Merge per nominator....William 11:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In Singapore, an Industrial Park is a "themed" estate where clusters of establishments are grouped by industry. They are mostly a subset of an Industrial Estate. The current three entries under the Industrial Estate category (there are actually quite a few more. We just have not created articles for them yet) are certainly not industrial parks.--Huaiwei (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, reverse merge and redirect, to reflect local usage, adding explanatory text; we do not need both levels, and the parent belongs in Category:Industrial parks per lead article Industrial park. – FayenaticLondon 15:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How would you classify Changi Business Park and International Business Park then? Calling them an industrial park is acceptable here, but to call them an industrial estate sounds strange in local contexts. Because we usually associate an industrial estate with..well...a traditional industrial estate with grimy factories set in dusty, unspectacular surroundings. Some of those "industrial parks" (designated as such by local authorities) are actually "Business parks" dominated by high-end offices in immaculately landscaped surroundings, although they have some light industrial buildings as well.--Huaiwei (talk) 12:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: If category description is accurate, contains a mixture of housing estates and industrial estates (industrial parks). These are usually categorised in different trees Category:Housing estates and Category:Industrial parks. Tim! (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support split/upmerge per nom, except that renamed Oxfordshire category name should use "in" - see below. – FayenaticLondon 15:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: all five current members seems to be housing and not industrial. – FayenaticLondon 18:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment -- This category appears to be being misused to cover a multitude of things. Some of it isCategory:Housing estates in Oxfordshire, but other parts is probably about Country estates in Oxfordshire (compare item above), though some of the articles seem more to be about a village than an estate. Purge if renamed. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep; contents to be managed better. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Very little content, covers articles that are included in other categories. Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but depopulate to ONLY those articles or categories which exclusively address violence against men. many of the items in this category are about violence against people. I see some value in the parallel category to Category:Violence against women, but both should be narrowly exclusive, not inclusive. I note that the template on this topic includes articles that are gender-non specific as well. this is a subtle form of agenda pushing, as if violence against women and men are equivalent, which they are definitely not. most violence against men is not because of their gender, while most violence against women is.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the nature of this agenda pushing, do you think it would be possible to police this depopulation without the articles being vandalised? It was difficult enough to get 'Hanged, drawn and quartered' of all things removed from the list. --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"most violence against men is not because of their gender, while most violence against women is." I know I'm going to regret asking this but how the f*** could you possibly establish that? It really sounds like you're pulling facts out of thin air. Do you think when men are conscripted to serve in the army and serve as can on fodder, their gender doesn't really come into it?-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep but purge (e.g. remove most of the current subcats). Also add text (and consider renaming) to clarify the inclusion criteria. If we delete this category now (on the basis that it has few appropriate articles) then it's likely to be recreated. DexDor (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to make it semiprotected in that case? Also I think we should break any ties between it and 'Violence against women' as it is undermines the severity of the violence that does occur worldwide if there is the men one alongside it. It's sort of like having 'heterophobic violence' alongside 'homophobic violence', i.e. it undermines the encyclopedias depiction of the entire subject --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can't prevent people adding articles to a category (unless you protect every article that could be added to it!). If, after a few months, it's found that (even with inclusion criteria stated) inappropriate articles keep being added and this category still only contains a handful of appropriate articles/subcats then deletion could be reconsidered.
I don't see how the existence of one category undermines the severity of another. If wp ever has a number of articles about heterophobic violence then a category for that topic may be appropriate (i.e. to separate them from the rest of Category:Violence). The existence of a category for a topic should depend mainly upon the number of articles about that topic, not (directly) on the severity/importance of the topic (which would be very hard to get editor agreement about). DexDor (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so you feel that it should remain, but if articles do keep being added that are inappropriate, then we should put it back up for deletion? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully, with clear inclusion criteria (e.g. "This category is for articles about violence directed specifically against men. Articles about more general topics (e.g. domestic violence) should not be placed in this category.") it'll be less of a problem. A comment can also be added referring to this discussion. Category:Violence against women contains many articles about non-gender-specific violence (e.g. Stoning) so that category should be purged as well - otherwise editors can easily fall into the trap of thinking "this article is in a violence against women cat, but men are also victims of this so it should also be in a violence against men category" (when really it should be moved up to Category:Violence). A violence-against-X category should not be an attempt to list all the types of violence against Xs; it should be the list of wp articles for which violence-against-X is a WP:DEFINING characteristic. As for re-CFDing - let's see what the result of this CFD is first. DexDor (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep. As for whether violence against men is a worthwhile categorization, I will simply point out that the severity of violence enacted against men, if you look at androcide for example, is equivalent or worse than violence enacted against women. What can I say - we're a violent species - but we should not trivialize violence against men by assuming it is somehow normal. I think the current subcats are valid fwiw.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
this is a topic category, and as such you will always have such issues, they don't concern me at all. There are a number of honor killings that tArget men that I've seen reports about. Either we keep it in both categories, or remove it from both and move it up to violence or something similar since we can't possibly police all of the subcats and ensure they contain only female or male articles - so the neutral thing is to include both, or neither.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pushing the 'Violence' category could help. I think policing both subcategories is probably the best bet. These categories are regularly abused because sexism is such a fragile issue at the moment, what with the masculinist movement still finding its feet --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Obi: Most subcats should be in neither rather than both (i.e. the subcats should be directly below the Violence category). Otherwise, Category:Rape etc will get an ever increasing list of non-defining parent categories - violence against children, violence against old people, violence in the 1957 Fooian civil war ... DexDor (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
in theory I agree. In practice I believe you may end up with a front page article in the ny times if you removed rape from Category:Violence against women, and since there are many notable instances of rape of men, for example see recent documentary and articles on war rape (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men) neutrality demands we keep those categories as well, unless we want to gender split the whole rape tree. So the dual parenting comes about for a reason.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It is much less usual than with wives, but there is such a person as a battered husband. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is less about keeping it now, but more about hugely unrelated articles, such as 'Hanged, drawn and quartered', 'Woozle effect', and 'Emo Killings in Iraq' being added. It trivialises the entire category if it isn't taken seriously by editors. That said, it isn't possible to protect the category, so the best bet is probably for it watched and purged when it is vandalised again --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but police inclusion - Previous category was hugely vandalised and added to inappropriate pages. Some good edits have been made since and the category is looking much stronger for it --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
close please note: the nominator has effectively withdrawn the delete recommendation. Can we close this and continue the conversation about inclusion criteria on the category talk page please? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible to archive this on the Talk page right? Or should we just move the whole thing? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2014 (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.
