< October 24 October 26 >

October 25

Category:Somalian emigrants

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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: more common denonym Pass a Method talk 23:05, 25 October 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.

Category:Health centers

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: Relisted to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 3. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The main article appears to be clinic. Health center is a redirect to community health center which clearly states that it is a clinic with certain staffing. I suspect that this is more of a grouping of liked named organizations with the current name. So better to create the broader category and then subcategorize as needed in the future. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:27, 25 October 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.

Category:Organizations accused of piracy

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categorization for something potentially libelous should require more than accusations - which are, IMO, inherently non-defining as well, making this categorization doubly inappropriate.  Mbinebri  talk ← 18:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - No. That would be libelous. An accusation is not proof of anything and we do not place living people or organizations into categories which create a presumption of guilt or wrongdoing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment It would be if it was just some Joe.. but a US judge has called them "Pirates". That is the official opinion of the US courts. This should be merged then, allowing SSCS to be in the pirate category. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That someone insists something does not make that thing compatible with Wikipedia policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being incompatible with Wikipedia policy doesn't stop something happening. I'm not saying this category shouldn't be deleted, but the current discussion at Talk:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society should demonstrate that unless other editors are willing to support policy, content that is incompatible with Wikipedia policy will be added. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because of related crimes, in an official ruling to uphold an injunction, a US judge has called them "Pirates". That is the official opinion of the US courts. Wouldn't that be good enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.8.146 (talk • contribs)
  • A court opinion in a civil case does not equate to a finding of criminal guilt. See, for example, O.J. Simpson, who was acquitted in criminal court but found liable in civil court. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:07, 29 October 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.

Category:Films about child care occupations

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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 12:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overly specific, narrow category with only a couple potential entries. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:55, 25 October 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.

Category:Wikipedia categories named after women

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recently created category. We do not need a gender split of administrative categories, which will just needlessly expose their contents to the possibility of ghettoization, and calls for "why don't we have one for men?" - we already divide the eponymous cats by nationality, etc, so I see zero value in this one and it will cause more problems that it solves. There are already extant gendered categories for most jobs, nationalities, and even some jobs+nationalities, but we don't need gendered categories for an administrative list of eponymous cats. This link, while not a perfect search, indicates that there are at least 1000 eponymous people categories, so if we create a male counterpart, which would be the only logical thing to do here if this one is kept, it would mean adding an additional gendered-category to ~1000 new eponymous categories, and keeping this maintained over time in addition to the extant nationality and occupation trees (Category:Wikipedia categories named after people by nationality and Category:Wikipedia_categories_named_after_people_by_occupation). --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:15, 25 October 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.

Category:South America television navigational boxes

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We need to include Central America TV stations somewhere: we can't rename this "Latin American", as this would include Mexico, and having a "Central America" category on its own would be awkward (it's not really a continent) NSH002 (talk) 12:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mexico would go under north america, along with the rest of central america. We handle this the same way in dozens of other categories - the standard continents are NA, SA, Asia, Europe, Oceania, Africa, Antarctica. Central american and the Caribbean are included as part of NA as a matter of practice.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've now moved all of the central American ones under North America. See this for example: Template:Television in North America - notice how all of the central American and Caribbean countries are there. The original problem posed by the nominator doesn't exist anymore.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Misleading. The problem was there before I changed the categories (it seemed to me a minor non-controversial bit of clean-up as part of a much wider clean-up exercise). --NSH002 (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, culturally it's an absurdity that these countries should be considered part of North America. I've been to both Nicaragua and Costa Rica, and they would laugh in your face if you told them they were in North America. The whole idea is ludicrous beyond belief. If practice is to do so (and I haven't checked) then it badly needs to be changed. In any case, the proposed renaming avoids any argument about whether CA is in NA or SA, so the renaming neatly solves the problem (if there is one) in this particular case. --NSH002 (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should ask them to call up the geographers then to complain. Note that the container is Category:Television_navigational_boxes_by_continent, which contains Africa, Asia, Europe, Oceania, South America, North America - in other words, the standard continents, as defined geographically, are how we group every single other television station. There's no "But Asia is so different, India has nothing to do with China, Indians would laugh in your face if you said their TV stations should be put together with the Chinese ones" etc.. North America is geographically a single entity, reaching down to SA - that's how geographers define it, and what people might say in a bar in Nicaragua has nothing to do with our categorization schemes. As I noted on your talk page, if you really think a cultural grouping is needed here, create a DIFFERENT parallel category for Latin American TV stations and stick all of the LA countries (including Mexico) in there, but the continental groupings should stay. There isn't a debate about whether CA is in the North American or South American continent, that debate exists only in your head. Please recall, this is a category to group TEMPLATES, so the chances that a regular editor will be perusing it is rather slim. Regular editors do see this ==> Template:Television in North America however, and no-one has complained about inclusion of CA within.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
False logic. The correct definition depends on context, as any professional geographer will tell you. Your argument re China/India/etc is irrelevant, since nobody there disputes that they are in Asia. On the other hand, Latin Americans, whether in Central or South America, feel very distinct (with good reason) from North Americans. It is unbelievably offensive to call them "North Americans", or to categorise them as such. --NSH002 (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of Category:Television_navigational_boxes_by_continent, which is why I proposed to rename this category, and so neatly and with very little effort completely solve the problem here. No need to waste time setting up parallel categories. --NSH002 (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Incidentally, I have never been to any bar in Nicaragua or Costa Rica. --NSH002 (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note further that the category already contains Template:CATV Central and South America, which again supports the proposed renaming. --NSH002 (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Template:CATV Central and South America is currently in both NA and SA categories, which is reasonable solution since that particular template crosses continental borders, but Template:Television in North America is another example of one that remains within the package.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Misleading, it was only in the SA cat until you added the NA one here. --NSH002 (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are many examples where we do not lump together Central America as if it were North America such as Afro-Latin American, a bit of a misnomer really otherwise it wouldnt be called Central America and the countries would be treated as North American which in practice is not the case even if a few academics insist that it is. We dont allow geopgraphers to define what is common usage and nor is this a geographical encyclopedia. Just looking in the news today I found this which geographically defines North America and Latin America so there is clearly no worldwide consensus that Central America is North America. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The categories by continent are geographical. As noted before, you can also have cultural groupings, such as Latin American XXX, but that doesn't preclude use of geographic categories as well.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In fact geographers recognise more than one definition of North America, and the correct definition will depend on context. In some contexts, "North America" means "USA and Canada," or even, sometimes, just the USA. In other contexts, they will use "North America" to mean everything excluding Central America and South America, and in others your "geographical" definition. Note, for example, that List of sovereign states and dependent territories in North America, which you cited above, states explicitly that it uses "the most inclusive definition of North America". Professional geographers will use the definition most apprpriate to the context in which they are working. Similarly we should use an arrangement (in this case, of TV stations) that best fits the context. --NSH002 (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, I don't think we should go against the standard continental groupings, used in every other set of container categories that you can find, to suddenly decide that just for TV templates, central america is not part of north america. We have a long standing consensus on this issue, as can be demonstrated by looking at any central american category, and you will notice it's parent is north america. I already pointed out the possibility of a parallel system for latin america if you really really feel it is in the best interest of the wiki to have these little TV templates in multiple categories, but creating a hand-rolled-custom-different-than-any-other-categorization just for TV templates in contravention of long-standing consensus on these matters is ridiculous.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I looked at those. "Countries" and "culture" have Category:Countries in the Americas and Category:Culture of the Americas respectively among their parents. That's the correct structure, as it avoids any dispute over whether CA belongs in North America or South America (answer: it depends on context). They also have NA as parent cat, which is debateable, but can be tolerated as a convenience to our readers, but cannot be regarded as defining. You refer to a "long-standing consensus" - can you please point me to the discussion(s) where this consensus was established? If there really is such a consensus, then it needs to be modified to take account of context. What is ridiculous, and totally unacceptable, is putting these in a "North America" category in the wrong context. --NSH002 (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus doesn't only come from discussion; it mainly comes from the accrual and persistence of edits - see WP:EDITCONSENSUS. e.g. "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus.". As to the other parents like "the Americas", that is just avoiding the issue, it is not made to avoid dispute - because we have overarching categories that are not continental in nature, but in this case, we have a particular, specific, continental grouping, and that continental grouping should follow the template used everywhere else, you've forwarded no reason for an exception here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And WP:CCC, consensus can change. In fact, from what you say, there doesn't seem to be the strength of consensus you've been claiming. --NSH002 (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can also read Central America, which states It is the southernmost, isthmian portion of the North American continent, which connects with South America on the southeast; or Brittanica, which states: "Central America, southernmost region of North America, lying between Mexico and South America and comprising Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Belize." --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't preclude the category being called "Central and South America xxx" as per the nom. Problem solved, quick and easy. --NSH002 (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can also solve the problem by doing what every other category here does - put Central America as a subset of North America, and keep things clearly geographically classified according to how reliable sources categorize them. You haven't yet explained why TV station templates are so different from every other topic on the wiki to merit a special exception and unique grouping (e.g. Central + South America). Are you aware that there are countries in Central and South America which aren't part of Latin America, and don't speak spanish? Your so-called "cultural" grouping of Central+South America is thus rather flawed - it is instead a sort of invented merging of two geographical units (one a sub-continent, one a continent), couched in a claim that together this somehow forms a cultural area, all based on a trip to Costa Rica and chatting up a few locals?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying nothing of the kind. I am not saying that there should be a special exemption. Why don't you listen more carefully, and think through what people are saying? I have aleady told you that I think the treatment of central american categories does need to be reviewed as a whole. As it happens, this has only arisen because, on the NSH002 a/c, I am working on another task (a slow, long-term one requiring careful thought: a clean-up project on all the remaining templates in the HLIST tracking category, to which this proposed rename was an incidental helpful side change, a trivial no-brainer). So such a review is not a high priority for me at the moment. Remember, I have lost over a day's worth of productive wiki-editing thanks to you. Have you any idea how insulting, and downright wrong, what you have just said is? You assume that I am "inventing" things "based on a trip to Costa Rica" (again, you didn't read what I said) and "chatting up a few locals" (I'll say it again, you didn't read what I said). You don't know all the factors I base my views on, only what I happen to have mentioned so far. If you take the trouble to look at my work, you will see that I am a very careful, thorough, meticulous editor, and a stickler for accuracy. This makes me a slow editor. I like to take my time to think things through properly. As it happens, I have already started to think about developing a new guideline for central american categories - say WP:CENTAMCATS. Normally I might outline here my thoughts so far on what such a guideline might look like, but the unproductive, time-wasting, nature of the discussion here suggests this is not going to be a worthwhile exercise at this stage, or at least not until I have had time to explore further, think it through and expand it. Or maybe until some cooler heads arrive in this discussion. As for your speculation on my geographical knowledge, I will treat it with the contempt it deserves - you could hardly be more mistaken. --NSH002 (talk) 01:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ok, if you are saying most/all Central American categories should no longer be parented by NA, you'll have to forward some more evidence or reasoning. For now the best I've seen is 'I've been to Costa Rica and they would laugh if you said they were north American' - Which is not the claim being made here. Dont critique me b/c the only arguments i can respond to are those you've offered - it's not my job to troll through your contributions to confirm whether you are careful or not. I'd suggest dropping this particular issue and starting a broader community discussion at talk:categorization (notifying appropriate projects) about this issue if you feel a broader set of changes is warranted across the category tree - but chipping away at it and creating this one unique-in-the-wiki category is not the way to get the result you desire. I think consistency is appreicated by those who !vote here. I've tried to suggest the option which has been used in other places, which is to create a parallel Latin American cat and double categorize all of the templates in both continental and cultural/language-based groupings, but you rejected that. Remember, the existing structure is the result of hundreds of editors over many years, so if you want to toss out the basic assumptions you need more than 'I think this is ridiculous, and so do people I met in Nicaragua'--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"if you are saying most/all Central American categories should no longer be parented by NA" No, I am saying no such thing, but I am saying that it is (generally) highly offensive to place "North America(n) something" categories directly on articles/templates/whatever on Central America topics. When I visited Nicaragua, the place was a war zone, FFS, so it is not surprising that people are sensitive about this issue; they have all suffered, to varying extents (Costa Rica the least), at the hands of the norteamericanos. BTW, I am criticising you because you are making false assumptions about me, and then proceeding as if those assumptions were true, in the process wasting huge amounts of my time and energy. But I do agree that continuing this discussion here is pointless (I was really hoping that some category experts here would pick up on the faults in the present structure, and start work on framing a new structure) and that a broader discussion at talk:categorization is the way to go. It is not a priority for me at the moment, so it may take me a while to develop my thoughts. Meanwhile I hope other category experts might have a go at tackling the challenge. --NSH002 (talk) 08:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC) P.S. It is not a good idea to criticise, or make asumptions about, other editors without first looking at their contributions, user page, and so on (actually, not usually a good idea regardless).[reply]
I only was responding to the evidence you posted here, so if I made bad assumptions I apologize but you'd make it easier on yourself if you provided deeper evidence for your claims. Again you come in and claim just now that putting 'north American x' on a Central American country is deeply offensive - but to whom? Where? Why? Why have Central Americans not spoken up about this before? Where are the angry letters to Britannica, to ask them to stop claiming CA is part of NA? why do we have dozens or maybe hundreds of 'north American X' templates that are chock full of Caribbean and Central American countries? Where is the outcry if this is so offensive? I think you're making too big a deal out of this, and I haven't see evidence of great offense - but even if we did offend some sensitive ppl, frankly, I don't care that much - there are many things here that offend people, but our job is to be a neutral encyclopedia. Some ppl in latin america feel the use of the term American should not just mean US citizen, but guess what? we dont care - we go by the standard and most common definition of 'american' in the english language. some irish people hate the term British Isles, and are offended as shit to be considered part of those isles, and trust me, they have made their views known in spades, do we delete all the british isles categories or remove Ireland from within so as to not hurt their feelings? Nyet. ukrainians from Kiev want us to call it Kyev, as the russian transliteration Kiev reminds them of their oppression, and they have complained again and again, but the community says 'common name'. i could go on...Geographers tell us that CA forms part of NA, so that's what we write, and that's how we group things (for the same reason we put Israel in west Asia, surrounded by countries they dont like that much, even if they'd prefer to be in Europe). Ultimately there are oodles of ways to group countries together, but for categorization purposes in almost all cases we stick by standard continental groups. There's a big diff btw sub-catting Honduras under NA, and saying that Hondurans themselves are norteamericanos - so we shouldn't mix up a geographical identity with how an individual might identify.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your last statement re Honduras completely undermines your argument, IMO, Obiwankenobi. The only discussion I have had ain abar on this subject was in Guatemala and the Guatemalans were offended in being called American, which they associated with ppl from the USA, so perhaps bar arguments arent relevant either♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I understand your point. The point I was making was that it was claimed to be offensive to call central americans "norteamericanos" - the point I was making is there is a huge difference between calling someone X to their face, and classifying their television stations as a sub-category of the continent in which geographers agree their country lies. If CA countries being categorized as "north american" is offensive, we have several hundred categories to clean up, and as noted before I've yet to see any other complaints about this.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:38, 4 November 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.

Category:Meghalaya politician stubs

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 by nominator. Dawynn (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only one tagged article. Propose upmerging template. No prejudice against recreation once 60 articles tagged (minimum threshold for stub categories). Dawynn (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Category:Indian politician stubs is overloaded. The state politician categories were created prematurely, but in a valid attempt to relieve the load on the country category. Sorting the country category should fill many of the currently underpopulated state categories. Dawynn (talk) 19:42, 29 October 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.

Undersized Turkey geography stub 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: Keep. Dawynn (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Undersized stub categories. As noted at Wikipedia:WPSS, stub categories should start with at least 60 articles. These recently created categories don't even have half that amount. Propose upmerging the templates until they are used on the recommended number of articles. Dawynn (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These are geography categories, for top-level divisions of Turkey. If they are not populated at this moment, they will be soon enough, as there is a large load of villages to create articles from. Ithinkicahn (talk) 12:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Up to two years ago there were almost no articles about the small settlements in Turkey. But during the last two years the articles about the small settlements (mostly stubs) in 13 provinces (out of 81) were created (more than 5000) largely thanks to Dr. Blofeld's efforts. At the moment the rest are under construction. So why don't we wait a little more before deleting the cat ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep they'll just be re-created in time per Nedim; I've also seen similar arguments in other noms on Iranian categories that are now well populated. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:34, 25 October 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.

Category:Soul food

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The articles currently in this category cover a wide range of topics (e.g. Phaseolus lunatus, Catfish, Offal and Watermelon) for which being a soul food is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. Several of the articles I checked don't even mention "soul food". For info: There is a list at List of soul foods and dishes. This might be salvageable by adding inclusion criteria and a drastic purge. Examples of previous similar CFDs are Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_10#Category:Breakfast_foods and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_20#Category:Baseball_foods. DexDor (talk) 06:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted above, ingredients such as rice or beef would not belong, but a special beef+rice dish that is strongly identified with cuisine X would fit.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:41, 25 October 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.

Category:Bash at the Beach

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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There are only two items in the category... One of them is a misspelled redirect and the other is an article nominated for deletion.LM2000 (talk) 04:15, 25 October 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.

Category:Rape victims

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, listify if wanted. With the latter possibility in mind, I'll drop a note on Drmies' talk page, and wait a bit before implementing the close. - jc37 18:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: BLP-issues magnet. In spite of the wish to keep this for historical people only, this has started to attract living people, like Tori Amos or Maya Angelou and many others. Even if someone was a rape victim, in the majority of cases this is not DEFINING of them. I think this category should be deleted, and some of the members moved to Category:Sexual abuse victims activists - for such people who were known for being raped and then having worked against sexual violence afterwards. As it is now, it's being used to tag the bios of famous singers/actresses who have been raped, I really don't see the value here. Listification should be done instead. (an extant list is at atList_of_rape_victims_from_history_and_mythology). Note the monitoring necessary for this category (ex here) to me suggests that it is too delicate a category to have for BLPs, and it would be even worse if someone decided to write an article on how wikipedia considered some women (like Traci Lords) to not be worthy of the "rape victim" category. Shudder... Those proposing keep in the March 2013 discussion mostly wanted it to be only for historical people, but BLPs are starting to be added here, and I can't see any justification to not let them all in once you let one in. I think a better solution is delete and listify as needed. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: older discussions here:

I notified participants in the past discussion of this one.

a list, as you've already created, is simply a better solution. This cat has too many problems which outweigh the benefits. I shouldn't be saying this but seriously, how will it look if we start excluding women like Madonna from this category if we judge their rape wasn't defining enough - even though this may be the case from a wikilawyer POV - eg there are people who are principally notable b/c they were raped and others for whom it's simply an admission that comes out long after they're famous. this is such a sensitive and personal subject, i really think focusing your efforts on maintaining a well referenced and explained and sorted list of historical and mythological characters who were victims is a much better way, categories just aren't set up for the subtlety you're looking for.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A list is not a "finer" tool. But whatever. I'm tired of all this, which strikes me as nothing but recentism on the part of way too many editors. Don't think for a moment that I intended this as a category for anyone still alive, or recently dead, of even from after 1900. That you would nominate this, after all your complex theorizing on complicated ways of categorizing, strikes me as counterintuitive--all these complicated tools, all this machinery, and we can't make a category for literary, historical, mythological victims who often by definition are remembered for this one tragic event? It's unimpressive. But I am in fact tired of this. I've added a few entries to the list and I'm going to leave this be. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We need to have clear inclusion criteria, and in a case where your inclusion criteria are rather complex, coupled with the fact of opening up many articles to BLP issues, the tradeoff isn't there. Can you describe why a list is not better here? What does a category give you that a list does not? If we rename this as "historical rape victims", then what is the cut-off? If it's 1900, why? Why not someone who died in 1901? The inclusion criteria as you're attempting to describe them are rather subjective, and really better handled in a list that could group things by century or era for example.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The very act of removing someone from this category, as you've done recently, could be seen as equivalent to saying the person in question is not a rape victim. Even the header describing the criteria does not exclude BLPs. Remember, categories are very hard to monitor - the only way to see new additions is to go to the category page, and click on recent changes - something that would have to be done at least weekly to monitor this correctly. A list on the other hand can be sourced - each entry carefully vetted, sorted, ordered, and described, and additions can be seen via edits. Categories that need to be closely monitored are generally not a good idea, and in this case the benefits outweigh the costs. You say you want a list for scholars - then build out the list! Rape-victim-tagging dozens or hundreds of BLPs or even BDPs is not going to be helpful, and it's not clear that the reader would be well served nor that a BLP would be improved by having a binary "rape victim" at the bottom of their page. Rape victims exist at all points in history, so even if you try to keep this to "historical" people, someone who died in 1950 is still historical, and there are plenty of bios of people who died in the past 100 years where we can find sourcing that says they were raped. I just think on balance, this category isn't worth it. It's much easier to maintain a list and define tighter inclusion criteria for said list and patrol it accordingly. Also I'd suggest having one list for mythological or fictional characters, and another list for real historical people.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's semantics, Obiwankenobi, and your last sentence shows that you don't really understand the issues I'm addressing. The ones that are on the list are historical--not in the sense in which the average Wikipedia editor may understand the word, but their lack of understanding is not my problem. Really, who are you to decide whether a person from the Bible should be considered mythological or "real historical"? Do you think Ovid made Philomela up out of whole cloth? No, don't answer those questions: they're impossible to answer--apparently too complicated to solve in the greatest encyclopedia ever. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This particular problem you point to is not an issue with these lists, it's a more general issue in that for categories there is a guidance that says you should not mix real people with fictional ones. As to whether the lists should be split or not, that's really an issue for the talk page of that list to see what other people think. I'm not trying to decide anything, it should be based on sources - if the academic consensus is that person X was a real person then they could go on the list of real people, where as person Y who was just a character in a book - even if based on someone the author knew - would go on the list of fictional characters. The fact that there is fuzziness around mythological vs historical people is all the more reason to use a list, where these differences and subtleties can be explained and discussed, as opposed to a category where it's binary: in-or-out. Otherwise, what would keep us from categorizing literary figures here? I'm still waiting for an answer on why a list is not a good solution, and still don't understand why you absolutely need a category (with all of the challenges outlined and now demonstrated in practice by the current contents) to complement said list.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear on what your proposed inclusion criteria are then. All rape victims? All rape victims pre-1900? All rape victims pre-1700? As evidenced by the current contents (and how they violate the currently stated criteria) we are failing in our job to police this appropriately, and unless someone signs up to monitor this weekly, we will continue to fail.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was the same argument I made in the murder victim cat. regardless of the subject being dead, the potential/alleged/convicted accused is still covered by WP:BLP. I don't disagree with your logic, but we need to be consistent in the application and not having every decision be ad hoc (stare decisis). Either there is a guiding principle, or there isn't. and if there isn't then the policy/guideline backed reasons for deletion here fall apart. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The guiding policies here are BLP and IAR I think; rape cannot be easily compared to any other crimes, because of the nature of the crime itself, and thus victims of rape (unlike victims of any other crime) are afforded special consideration by our society that is not given for victims of assault, murder, or any of the other horrible things that might happen to someone. The existence of this category has nothing to do with whether we have a category for perpetrators of rape, by the way.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear - you are agreeing with adding some BLPs here, but not all, correct? That itself poses a problem in my book, as by adding, then removing a BLP, we are effectively stating they aren't rape-victim-enough to merit inclusion in this category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I wonder if you've missed the focus on historical (and mythological) persons? From this and other comments above, I'm wondering whether the solution isn't just to move it to Category:Historical rape victims and avoid the whole BLP can of worms; consensus may have changed, since it seems the historical version was removed because it was regarded as duplicating this one? Yngvadottir (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Historical was rejected as no-one came up with decent inclusion criteria that gives us a yes/no answer on whether something should be included. For example, Betty_Jean_Owens was a very famous rape victim, and her case was a very important part of black civil rights history, the first time white men had received serious sentences for raping a black woman. So, her rape, her courage in speaking out, and the attendant trial is clearly part of this country's history. But what criteria would keep her in this category, and Ashley Judd out? Having an arbitrary cut-off, like 1900, doesn't work either, as you would have to be constantly moving the cut-off (and "rapes that happened 113 years ago" is a rather odd category.) Historical is fuzzy fuzzy fuzzy, and not good for a category name unless you can define clearly what you mean and if you can find RS that use that same definition.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Historical is not the same as historic, although that may be a quibble - different readers will find different meaning in various examples, and what is really at issue is the validity of the category itself. There's a Scylla and Charybdis situation here - Scylla is the fact/fiction line where it relates to mythology/scripture/history of such antiquity that it has the status of legend - and Charybdis is our line in the sand between living people and dead people. Practically speaking, the least problematic criterion would be "no longer living"; it's harsh to apply a category to someone the day after they die that had been withheld out of respect until then; but our guidelines distinguish between BLPs and non-BLPs. The reason I bother to respond here is that I do believe the advantages to the category - if it avoids the BLP issue - outweigh the disadvantages: the incidence of rape in both history and narrative is a legitimate subject of study, in fact an important one. More simply put, I don't believe the encyclopedia serves rape survivors well by avoiding coverage of the phenomenon. The task is to avoid doing so in a way that does a disservice to rape survivors. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WTF?? Who said WP was avoiding coverage of rape??? Here is a small selection of the 160 articles and ~48 categories that have rape in their title: Rape; War_rape; Marital rape; Gang rape; Statutory rape; Prison rape; Types of rape;Pregnancy from rape;Laws regarding rape; the list goes on. But given all of the challenges around monitoring membership of this particular category, and the fact that people often ignore criteria (since you can add to a cat w/o reading the cat page), why, specifically, do you need a category here when you already have a list? Be specific please. No-one is saying rape is not important, but wikipedia lists of notable rape victims should not be used as a proxy for incidence of rape, it would be ridiculous to do so; the two have nothing to do with one another. If you want to know incidence of rape, walk over to Rape_statistics.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because someone may want to look at how it comes up in history and mythology (and whatever you call Biblical characters and saints). As I say, the task is to keep it from further victimizing BLPs, while recognizing that the community sees a need for both lists and categories. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You keep on avoiding the question. how does a category, whereby inclusion is binary (yes/no) and whereby it has been agreed this poses problems to biographies of living or dead - help answer your scholarly question? The list is largely sufficient, and can be sourced appropriately, and doesn't have any of the same "DEFINING" issues as categories. The community has NOT agreed that categories are always needed - for example, we have not categories for Vegetarians or Vegans, even though we have lists of same. In fact, we have many many lists that don't have corresponding categories.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of defining - which is given here Wikipedia:DEFINING - it has nothing to do with whether something had an impact on a person (I don't think anyone would ever claim that a rape had little impact on someone) - but here's where we get into a problem. If we open this up to BLPs, as you've further done with this edit, then any BLP who was raped, or claimed to be raped, would be added to this category - even if it was something that happened when they were a child and they only recently spoke about it (and again, in such cases we may not have any independent confirmation of same other than the claim of the victim - Ashley Judd is one such example). But being raped is not DEFINING for Ashley Judd, when she is introduced or if someone was writing a biography of her, the fact that she was raped would not show up in the lede. Contrast this to someone like Betty Jean Owens, whose main source of notability is her rape and subsequent trial which was historic. So, if we use the DEFINING standard for BLPs who have been raped, then we end up removing Category:Rape victim from people who have been raped but for whom it is not a defining characteristic - e.g. people who are known for lots of other things, and who announce many years later they were also a victim. But, by removing this category from certain BLPs, it may appear that we are claiming that person X was NOT a rape victim, which is not true either. Rape is not the same as kidnapping or murder or any other crime, it is an intensely personal violation, and rape victims are treated differently than other victims for precisely this reason. If, on the other hand, we drop the "DEFINING" criteria, and simply tag every BLP that has made a claim of being a victim of rape, we may have the opposite problem - because many of those people may rather not see "rape victim" as one of their categories on the bottom of the page, compared to in running text where it can be contextualized and dealt with appropriately. Categories are black and white, and we need to have somewhat black and white inclusion criteria, but esp for BLPs, either way (i.e. only those for whom it is DEFINING, or everyone) poses problems that are greater than the benefit to the wiki.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The category is something people would search for. Rape is common enough that the victims would look for articles about those who went through the same nightmarish experience they did. They will gain strength reading about the stories of others, who were able to still able to be successful in their lives. And whether or not they were emotionally able to press charges when it happened isn't relevant. We have no reason to believe they'd make it up just to be added to a Wikipedia search category. I recently undid the removal of this category from various articles.
  • 12:41, 29 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+26)‎ . . Madonna (entertainer) ‎ (Undid revision 579208876 by Kaldari (talk) she talks about the rape, it mentioned in the article. No BLP issue here) (current) [rollback: 1 edit]
  • 12:39, 29 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+26)‎ . . Maya Angelou ‎ (Undid revision 579207868 by Kaldari (talk) she talked about it, including in a book she wrote. No BLP issue here either) (current) [rollback: 1 edit]
  • 12:38, 29 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+26)‎ . . Annabel Chong ‎ (Undid revision 579207797 by Kaldari (talk) article says she made a film about her life including her gang rape) (current) [rollback: 1 edit]
  • 12:37, 29 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+26)‎ . . Tori Amos ‎ (Undid revision 579207353 by Kaldari (talk) she has publicly talked about being raped and created a well known charity to help others.) (current) [rollback: 1 edit]
  • Note that all of these people had spoken about their rapes, published books talking about them, and one had made a film about her life talking about the event. Dream Focus 14:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not claiming any of these people made it up; however, it does indicate a potential problem with such categories, where a conviction has not been secured, which means a self-claim of having been raped is sufficient to put someone in this category. Again, a list might be workable here, in order to give context (e.g. this person made a claim to have been raped when a child, this person was raped and the rapist was convicted, this person was raped when she was 30 but the rapist was never caught, etc) - but a binary category - yes/no, for me doesn't work, and plenty of other editors agree. If we keep this, nothing would prevent recreating Category:Gang rape victims either for example.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The gang rape category is a totally different story. No need to separate people into smaller categories for that. That'd be like murder victims killed with a gun, killed with a knife, killed with a hammer, etc. No point to it. Nor would this have any possible bearing on bringing back the fictional rape victims category, that having absolutely nothing to do with this at all. Dream Focus 15:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@DF re your comment above "victims would look for articles about those who went through the same ... experience they did" - do you realise that many (especially young) _readers_ of WP do so using a mobile device (e.g. phone) for which (in my experience) categories aren't displayed ? i.e. that's another reason why this sort of thing is better as a list than a category. DexDor (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CLN explains "The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping." Having a category doesn't mean you can't have a list. Dream Focus 08:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, could you describe how you would delineate a "historical victim"? Is this anyone who is dead? Anyone who died before 1900? Do we need to revisit the inclusion criteria every year, as more people become "historical"?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was simply updating the inclusion criteria to reflect the current contents and what I read as the rough consensus of this discussion. It is normal during a CFD for inclusion criteria to be updated; feel free to update your !vote to point to the older version of the criteria, or change it if you disagree with the current criteria, or even discuss the current criteria further on the cat talk page.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Obiwankenobi: I see no draft, let alone a 'rough consensus' for one. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a pointless bit that wasn't saying anything. And to handle concerns stated in this discussion I added "If the rape is not mentioned and properly referenced in the article, it should not have this category added to it.". So that takes care of a lot of problems. Dream Focus 22:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS... added to which, some of those probably need to go as well (acid attack victims? Really?) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay. And it says at the top " Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid." This is a valid comparison. It has to do with Wikipedia naming convictions and standard method of grouping similar things. Dream Focus 08:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where did I present OSE as policy? Oh right, I didn't. And no, it isn't a valid comparison - particularly when someone is referencing "Acid attack victims", which is a category that almost certainly should not exist, as it is even less defining than being a rape victim (albeit without quite being as much of a BLP risk.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being disfigured by acid is pretty defining, isn't it? As for being a rape victim, we can agree such event has a very strong impact upon the person going through such assault. We can limit the inclusion to cases where a judicial ruling has been rendered by a court or to cases where very strong evidence exists (see the [(Recy Taylor]] case).Jean Po (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rape has a notable effect on the live of the victim, something mugging has not, and don't see the existence of this category as sexist (men can be victims too as the Clyde Barrow and Abner Loumia cases show). Jean Po (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mugging doesn't have a notable affect on the life of a victim? That's clear bullshit. Mugging can be an incredibly traumatising experience, and the violence often involved can lead to a victim feeling the physical results for a long time after. I do agree, however, that this category here isn't strictly sexist. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it is worth, virtually all rapes are perpetrated by men, but a large portion of victims are men as well. Although if we include statutory rapes in the statistics the numbers become more complex, since a noticeable portion of those are carried out by women.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 8 December 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.
More