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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Most-wanted Iraqi playing cards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Isn't this WP:OCAT by, well, a perverse kind of "award"? If kept, it should be Category:People depicted on the Most-wanted Iraqi playing cards as these are people, not articles on playing cards. Courcelles 21:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify. This belongs in a list, not a category. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already have Most-wanted Iraqi playing cards. Courcelles 06:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then delete. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Obviously not defining; since a list already exists, the category can be deleted. Mangoe (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is an award category (well maybe more an anti-award, but that is a type of award) and as such should be delted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2013 (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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. – Fayenatic London 18:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:* Propose renaming Category:Airliner accidents and incidents involving runway overruns to Category:Aviation accidents and incidents involving runway overruns

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per Category:Aviation accidents and incidents by type, not only airliners happen to overrun the runways. Brandmeister^talk 20:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The proposed category name would be a seperate category from the Airliners category; it has not been created only because there are no notable non-airliner overrun accidents with articles yet. If it is needed it should be created on its own; moving the accidents here from 'Airliners...' to 'Aviation...' will take them out of the Category:Accidents and incidents involving airliners tree. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, I've gone ahead and created the proposed category as a container cat. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I pulled the nomination, although such categorizing would look more appropriate when non-airliner overruns appear as well IMO. Brandmeister^talk 13:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quite true, but it'll clear up the issue until notable such accidents are found. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:32, 28 January 2013 (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 all. This was the consensus anyway, but as it turns out, this could have been a "procedural keep" as none of the pages were tagged. – Fayenatic London 21:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Swedish female high jumpers
• Category:Spanish female high jumpers
• Category:Russian female high jumpers
• Category:New Zealand female high jumpers
• Category:Kazakhstani female high jumpers
• Category:Italian female high jumpers
• Category:East German female high jumpers
• Category:Dutch female high jumpers
• Category:Croatian female high jumpers
• Category:American female high jumpers
• Category:Chinese female high jumpers
• Category:Canadian female high jumpers
• Category:Belgian female high jumpers
• Category:Canadian female racewalkers
• Category:Italian female racewalkers
• Category:Canadian female long-distance runners
• Category:New Zealand female long-distance runners
• Category:Canadian female long jumpers
• Category:New Zealand female long jumpers
• Category:New Zealand female javelin throwers
• Category:Canadian female hurdlers
• Category:New Zealand female hurdlers
• Category:Canadian female middle distance runners
• Category:New Zealand female middle distance runners
• Category:Canadian female sprinters
• Category:New Zealand female sprinters
• Category:Italian female sprinters
• Category:New Zealand female discus throwers
• Category:New Zealand female hammer throwers
• Category:Canadian female pole vaulters‎
• Category:New Zealand female shot putters

I believe these categories should be re-upmerged to the "female eventers" and "fooian female athletes" parent categories. These categories, dividing track and field athletes by their gender, event and nationality are overwhelmingly a narrow intersection. We currently have seventeen different event categories for track and field athletes and 225 nationality track and field categories. Without even considering gender, things like Category:New Zealand discus throwers and Category:New Zealand female athletes are already pretty narrow.

The expansion of this type of category will force the track and field category structure into very narrow definitions. I even think that "fooian eventer" categories have done much damage in this respect: in Category:Hammer throwers, around 50 of the 70 subcategories contain a negligible number of articles. There are of course examples where these semantic divisions would make sense (Category:American sprinters, Category:Kenyan long-distance runners) but beyond this the vast majority of categories will be ill-served by this division.

There tend to be a few hundred athlete articles per event, not thousands. The end-game of an event/gender/country category structure would produce over 7500 categories. There comes a point where we have to ask ourselves: do we really need 200 different categories for long jumpers? SFB 19:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as they are. Gender is important here because in all sport events listed here men and women compete separately. Nationality also has an encyclopedic value here as nearly all sports people compete for their country of origin and/or citizenship (also some folks may be interested in female sprinters from a particular country for example). Brandmeister^talk 20:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Men and women compete separately here. Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In every article for every competition from the Olympics on down, men and women are described in reliable and verifiable sources as competing separately, with competitors representing their country and participating in a specific sport. The International Olympic Committee seems to have no difficulty dealing with thousands of these individuals as people across their different combinations of sex, sport and country in events staged at a cost of billions of dollars, why should we have any more difficulty in allocating the few additional bytes needed to mirror this real-world distinction? Alansohn (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per Alansohn. AFAICS, men and women compete separately in all these sports, so they should be categorised separately.
  It is a pity that nominator appears not to have read WP:Cat gender, which says As most notable organized sporting activities are segregated by gender, sportsperson categories constitute a case where "gender has a specific relation to the topic". As such, sportsperson categories should be split by gender, except in such cases where men and women participate primarily in mixed-gender competition. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No we do not need 200+ ill-populated categories for each track-and-field event, further subdivided by gender against WP:CATGRS, which discourages doing so except where genuinely useful. Having thousands upon thousands of pointless microcategories like this is not useful at all. No amount of politically correct testiness is going to change that. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 10:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Claims of "political correctness" are irrelevant here. We categorise by defining characteristic, and gender is a defining characteristic of competitors in sports which are segregated by gender, just as nationality is a defining characteristic of sportspeople who seek to compete as representatives of their nation. Whether is "politically correct" to do so or not to do so, we should categorise attributes which are defining. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's bizarre is that the delete is predicated on a reference to WP:CATGRS, but ignores BHG's direct quote from that editing guideline, which states (again) that "As most notable organized sporting activities are segregated by gender, sportsperson categories constitute a case where "gender has a specific relation to the topic". As such, sportsperson categories should be split by gender, except in such cases where men and women participate primarily in mixed-gender competition." This is not a situation where categories could be split by sex; these are categories that should be split. Every aspect of this structure -- sex, sport and country -- is extremely well defined, and the ability to navigate through related articles in this structure by sex, by nation, by sport or by any combination thereof is a rather clear aid to navigation of an exceedingly strong defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it would be misleading to not divide people in these sports by gender.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Sorry but I think my nomination has been completely misread by the majority of the people above. At no point am I saying we should do away with the female athlete categories like Category:Female hammer throwers or Category:Canadian female track and field athletes. My first line explicitly says these categories should be retained as important categories in the structure.

I am advocating that a triple category intersection comprising nationality, gender, AND event is generally unviable, hence my point about this intersection having a possible 450 categories for long jumpers. Essentially my point is that just because we allow for occupation categories and gender categories and nationality categories, doesn't mean we should immediately dismiss narrow category issues and roll them all into one category. Could those above please revise their statements to reflect the nature of the nomination? SFB 18:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced. Female high jumpers is the logical group, and then we split it by nationality. There is no reason to have gender-neutral categories like Category:Spanish high jumpers. The female and male high jumpers are so seperate we should not categorize them together in that way. Anyway, if we got rid of Category:Spanish female high jumpers we would have to put the people in more categories, as both Category:Spanish high jumpers, Category:Female high jumpers and Category:Spanish female athletes. The resultant categories would get unreasonably large, and people would be unreasonable numbers of categories. There events are clearly split by gender at all levels, and splitting these categories by nationality is a logical system, so I see no reason not to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If not split by nationality Category:Female high jumpers would have over 50 direct contents. Anyway, there is no reason to suppose these categories are unlikely to grow. They are logical splits. We generally allow by nationaity splits. In reality these are just intersections of compwetion (female high jumping) and nationality. We split the vast majority of people categories by nationality, and I see no reason to not do so with these.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that from the nomination, but I still believe that the intersection of nationality, sex and sport is the defining characteristic of these individuals. Sure, Anna Clemente, is Italian, and female and a racewalker, and she could be categorized by any of those three characteristics. But in international competition she competes as an Italian female racewalker, which is why she belongs in Category:Italian female racewalkers. There may well be some small categories, but the gain in ease of navigation across all of these low-level categories as well as the ability to search on Italian racewalkers, or female racewalkers or Italian female athletes is just a lagniappe. This intersection is not just allowed, but actively encouraged by WP:CATGRS, and is one that clearly benefits Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indicating nationality, gender AND event together is encyclopedically important per above. I'd just add that sport consists of multiple events, so categories should reflect that reality, alongside gender and country. Upmerging all categories would be unproductive. Brandmeister^talk 19:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Thanks to the nominator for kindly leaving a note on my talk page about his explanation above.
  However, I have not changed my mind. The bottom line for me is that male and female atheletes do not compete against each other, so should be categorised separately. This is just like what we do with other divisions in sport, such as Category:Runners. A sprinter does not compete against a marathon-runner, so we categorise them differently.
  The nom talks of these categories as a triple intersection, but that is not the case. For example, Category:Swedish female high jumpers is an intersection between Swedish people and Female high jumpers. The nom's mistake is to see Female high jumpers as an intersection of two unrelated attributes, which is wrong. Womens high jump is a widely-contested sporting event, not an intersection. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:36, 1 February 2013 (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: Proposal for rename was defeated per the consensus achieved at WT:GAA and subsequently confirmed at WT:IMOS. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose re-naming the following hurling categories that cross-sect by GAA county.

Category: Antrim hurlers to Category:Antrim GAA hurlers

Category: Derry hurlers to Category:Derry GAA hurlers

Category: Down hurlers to Category:Down GAA hurlers

Category: Ulster hurlers to Category:Ulster GAA hurlers

Category: Leinster hurlers to Category:Leinster GAA hurlers

Category: Munster hurlers to Category:Munster GAA hurlers

Category: Connacht hurlers to Category:Connacht GAA hurlers

Nominator's rationale per the precedent of Category:Tipperary GAA hurlers held at here. The "counties" are governing bodies, not administrative counties and so need to be disambiguated. This tidies up the situation in all of Ireland (assuming that the proposal of January 17 is also carried). Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for all the reasons set out in many comments opposing the parallel proposal from this editor, here, affecting another 22 categories. This editor changed one category that didn't need changed, and is now trying to cite that as a rationale for changing dozens of others that don't need changed. Brocach (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's what's called a Precedent - "a precedent or authority is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.". Hence the citation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not operate as a court. The fact that a bad idea got pushed through in one category does not require changes to dozens of other categories. It requires the first category to be restored to its correct place. Brocach (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reality is somewhere between those two views. Wikipedia discussions are not legal judgments, and LL is wrong to view one CFD as being like a supreme court decision. However, the category system does work best if categories are consistent, so there is a strong case for consistency, and consistency with an existing convention is one of the criteria for speedy renaming. But in this case, the existing convention is not to use "GAA" in these categories, and the previous decision was flawed because it sought to change a convention without nominating all the affected categories. Since no reason was offered to make Tipperary an exception, it should not have been renamed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Firstly, this discussion should either wait until the closure of the Jan 17 discussion on other similar categories, or be merged with that one. There appear to be no separate issues raised by this set of categories (other than he addition of provinces, which the nominator lumps in as if they were counties), so there is no reason to discuss them separately to the others. If the others are renamed, this this can be speedied; if they are not renamed, then this proposal is pointless.
  Substantively, this is a pointless disambiguation which simply adds verbosity without clarifying anything. "Antrim GAA hurlers" can be read either as "(Antrim GAA) hurlers" which does slightly emphasise that we refer to hurlers who played for Antrim GAA ... but it can equally well be read as "Antrim (GAA hurlers)", which is tautologous and adds no clarity.
  The nominator's attempt to raise the distinction between a GAA county and an adminstrative county is a red herring; in most cases the two have identical boundaries, and in cases where they diverge the differences are small and variable.
  The "precedent" cited by the nominator is a bad decision, arising out of the nomination of only one county, which led to inadequate scrutiny. The same arguments have achieved much less support when discussed at Jan 17 in relation to a wider set, and it is an abuse of process to repeatedly discuss the same issue in this way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per BHG. It is pointless and an abuse of process to propose further moves while the earlier proposal is still under discussion. There is no confusion in the present titles and therefore no need for disambiguation. Scolaire (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Per the resoning that the templates refer to the GAA counties not the geographical counties. The current ones are misleading as those who don't know about GAA could be misled into thinking that derry was the name of the administrative county rather than only being the GAA county name. It should be changed so all can be clear without fear of confusion. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose since the current name is sufficiently clear and there is no good reason to chance it to a longer form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• FYI You may wish to consider the proposal for a topic ban on Laurel Lodged here. Brocach (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Don't see any ambiguity so no need to disambiguate. Mo ainm~Talk 10:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Makes sense to include the association name and sporting title in team names especially for a minority sport. The Article looses nothing by name change but gains by making it easier to find via search engines.Factocop (talk) 11:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per BHG and Scolaire. Snappy (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion to WT:GAA, request no more comments here until core issues settled there. Brocach (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Gaelic games#Article_and_category_naming_conventions has now been closed. The relevant section is proposal 3, which was upheld (see permalink). It reads: Titles of categories of people who have played on inter-county GAA teams should not have "GAA" inserted after the county name, i.e. "X hurlers", not "X GAA hurlers"; "X Gaelic footballers", not "X GAA Gaelic footballers". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Closure requested. I have listed this discussion at WP:AN/RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:36, 9 February 2013 (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: rename to Category:Governors of Ottoman Crete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Governors of the vilayet of Crete to Category:Ottoman governors of Crete

Nominator's rationale: per all other "X-nationality governors of Y-place" categories, plus the fact that such a category would be more inclusive, as "Ottoman Crete" covers the period 1646-1898, but Crete was a vilayet only in 1864-1898 Constantine ✍ 17:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to more inclusive name. No reason to limit the category only to the last 34 years of Ottoman Crete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Governors of Ottoman Crete per head article Ottoman Crete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The typical naming form seems to be "Ottoman governors of X", which IMO is better since it puts the emphasis on the "Ottoman" part. Plus, "Ottoman Crete" is simply a descriptive name. The island was still for all intents and purposes named Crete (or Candia) during that time. Constantine ✍ 20:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per BHG. Whether or not the governors were actually "Ottoman" will possibly be unclear. What is clear is the place was under Ottoman control. I guess they all count as "Ottoman" by some level, but I think it is just better to focus on the place being Ottoman controlled. The question is who was in power in the place, this is by office, the Governor of Ottoman Crete, and not by nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2013 (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: rename to Category:Deaths from brain tumor. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Deaths from brain cancer to Category:Deaths from brain tumor

Nominator's rationale: There is no brain "cancer". Malignant brain tumours are usually gliomas, blastomas etc. Jarash (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—The effect of this change would be to move from a title meaning malignant tumours only to one that covers benign and uncertain behaviour as well. I can't tell from the category notes what the intention of the category as it stands currently is. I also note that the category is not tagged. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reliable facts should matter even if the change will bring something. Also added a tag to category. --Jarash (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Deaths from brain tumor (or Category:Deaths from brain tumors to match US ENGVAR title of parent article brain tumor. Alansohn (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Jarash (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2013 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Asian sex gang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: The is a tabloid headline, not a category. The term 'sex gang' is slang and vague, and the use of 'Asian' is problematic - does it mean based in Asia, or made of up Asians (the latter, it seems), and how many of the 'gang' must be Asian to categorise an article here? Not all the perpetrators in the Derby sex gang were South Asian, and whether the ethnicity is a defining factor of these groups is disputed. Because "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial", this category should be deleted. Fences&Windows 11:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to "Sex Gang" to remove any racist connotations.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete "Sex Gang" is just a sensationalist tabloid label, it is not something for which there are any workable inclusion criteria.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  You wouldn't call BBC a tabloid [1]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's beside the point - it is clearly sensationalist tabloid-style language regardless of where it is found. What would be your inclusion criteria? Any gang having been described as a "sex gang" in news media? What makes a gang a sex gang? Probably most criminal organizations traffick in prostitution as well as other nastiness. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wе should go according to WP:RS say.If WP:RS describe certain organisation as sex gang then it probably should be part of the category.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is a part of the "Muslims are on global raping rampages" agenda that some in the Israel-Palestine topic area have been pushing over the last few weeks/months. The creator of this particular category had to be banned from the topic area entirely, give his atrocious behavior. There is no rational call or reason to categorize people in this manner in an encyclopedia. Tarc (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly this is exceedingly ambiguous. And "sex gang" is even worse. If this needs to be kept, it needs a much more restricted title, otherwise, all gang rape cases in Asia articles would be categorized into this. -- 70.24.246.233 (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as racist tabloid garbage. Truly repulsive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacks clear inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Asian sex gangs in United Kingdom - Yes it is repulsive, but unfortuantely it has an element of truth to it. In England, we have had a significant problem of gangs of men grooming and then prostituting young English women, often those who have been in the "care" of local authorities. Unfortunately, when the girls went to the police, they were not believed. A case in Rochdale led to a gang of men of Pakistani descent being imprisoned. Another case is being tried at Oxford. The gangs doing this seem to be disproportionately to be of Pakistani and Muslim descent, but not necessarily all are. Deleting this should not be an option. Unfortunately there is a racial element in this. In a similar way, some years ago, many of the robbers in London were of West Indian descent. The English criminals of the same age group were engaging in burglary. I would ask others commenting on this to consider these facts (and perhaps the articles categorised) before voting. We may need a similar category for the Delhi gang rape and murder case. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually at least some of the articles here involve groups in Australia so the proposed rename would not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sex gangs generally are not notable enough to warrant standalone articles, so there is no need in creating more narrow categories by continent like Asia. Category:Forced prostitution and Category:Human trafficking can be used instead. Brandmeister^talk 21:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-encylopediac category name. If it were renamed, we already have these categories, so this is not needed. Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and the above. The rename is stupid. I don't see White sex gangs in United Kingdom or similar getting created anytime soon. 188.26.163.111 (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as blatant POV-pushing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with the other "delete" comments. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - BLP nightmare, created with an obvious agenda. GiantSnowman 17:06, 30 January 2013 (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: rename. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Hotels on the National Register of Historic Places to Category:Hotel buildings on the National Register of Historic Places

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Based on the parent category, this is about the buildings and not the establishments even though both can be covered in the actual article. This is a follow on to this discussion. Like that one, this would better match the naming established for Category:Bank buildings on the National Register of Historic Places, Category:Industrial buildings and structures on the National Register of Historic Places, Category:Government buildings on the National Register of Historic Places and Category:Post office buildings on the National Register of Historic Places along with others. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• REname -- Obvious. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per the usual reason that it is the building which is the subject of registration. Mangoe (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2013 (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: rename to Category:Amarna letters writers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Amarna letters authors to Category:Amarna letters writers

Nominator's rationale: Or something else. I suggested on Speedy that we rename this to the target category, because we've transferred nearly all other "author" categories to "writer" categories. But there was an objection that the "writers" in question were the scribes of the monarchs who dictated them. This is way outside my knowledge base, so maybe a solution can be found here.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or possibly Rename but to Category:Amarna letters senders. The person who physically wrote the letter may well have been an anonymous scribe, but if I dictate a letter to a secretary who types it, did she write the letter or did I? I would sign it and some one would put it in the post. The recipient would regard it as a letter from me. Authors categories tend to be about writign books or articles, not letters. This is a case of trying to fit a pattern to the facts, rather than the reverse. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. PKI spells it out well; "senders" might be more precise, but overly so, and confusing (to continue his anology, if the secretary then hands the letter to an intern who carries it to the mailbox and drops it in, does that make him the "sender"?). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:34, 28 January 2013 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Persian loanwords
• Nominator's rationale per precedent to delete the parent category here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_17#Category:Loanwords. We categorize things by what they are, not what they are named. Articles are on things, not on the words that describe them. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. This particular category has a combination of things that have been in English so long their connection to Perisan is loose at best (the fact a map showing Scythia is attached to the category shows how long ago we are dealing with), while on the other hand others things in the category have names that it is hard to say are English at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete highly ambiguous, could be words borrowed form Persian into any other language, words in Persian borrowed from other languages, or very biased words in Persian borrowed from English, or very biased words in English borrowed from Persian. It is the very biased "words in English borrowed from Persian" and there is absolutely no indication of this restriction in the category name. WP:Systematic bias should be avoided. Categories should never be so ambiguously named. -- 70.24.246.233 (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Close to match pending discussion on Category:Hindi loanwords. My vote on that was to keep. If kept the category needs to be purged of (1) places (2) words of Turkish or Arabic origin.
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is just a bad way to categorize things. Right now we have Looting which is in the Hind loan words category, but we explicitly state that looting and plundering are the same thing, so we could rename the article to Plundering and then it might fit in Category:German loanwords. The articles on synonyms ought to be in the same categories, especially since we only actually will have one of the articles, and redirect everything else to that artcle.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. Maahmaah 12:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maahmaah (talk • contribs)
• Delete per nom. No need to listify as that'd just be a partial (and probably less accurate) duplicate of the relevant categories in Wiktionary. DexDor (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2013 (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.