< March 16 March 18 >

March 17

Category:Mayors of Redlands, California

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:People from Redlands, California and Category:Mayors of places in California, without prejudice to future re-creation if in the future more than one article exists about people who were mayors of the place. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Has only 1 entry. ...William 22:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's only one mayor in office at any given time, sure. Most cities and towns have had many mayors over the course of their entire histories, however. Categories of this type are not only for the current holder of the office; anyone who's ever been mayor of Redlands would belong in this category if they had an article to file in it. Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Malaysian sex offenders

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) 00:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Has been up for a speedy C1 but possibly bad faith edits keep adding this cat to Anwar Ibrahim . These edits are soon removed. Speedy C1 seems ot make no provision for categories that are not empty only because of vandalism or other bad faith edits. The editor who created this cat and is adding it to the article has an extensive history of warnings and blocks, Meters (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Woman bartenders

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates final rung rule of WP:EGRS - as such this category would tend to ghettoize women bartenders who can't otherwise be divided in the parent Category:Bartenders. As if to prove my point, two of the members of the category are ghettoized right now. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
related discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_3#Category:Waitresses, waitresses deleted and merged to gender-neutral parent.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Alleged witches

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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is a bit of a mishmash, containing people who were actually put on trial and executed for witchcraft (which belong in Category:People executed for witchcraft‎) to people who were simply accused at one point of being witches or having powers. Normally, we don't do categories around those alleged to have committed crimes, but this is a strange case because we know (at least, I believe) that witchcraft doesn't exist, so we could never establish that someone actually was a witch!
This category brings together too many unlike things, as it seems to contain many people who at one time were regarded as having some sort of supernatural power, but I'm not sure that's a good basis for categorization (in the same way we wouldn't categorize people who were known to be beautiful or charming or friendly or really mean). It's essentially subjective and violates WP:OCAT for that alone, whereas if someone actually was convicted or killed or punished for allegedly doing witchcraft then at least we have something objective we can hang a category on. But "Alleged witches"? Not convinced it works. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't have categories for people "genuinely" suspected of being thieves, or rapists, or murderers, so why categorize witches? I think if it was more something like Category:People put on trial for being witches or some other evidence that they underwent some sort of judicial process, vs just people spreading rumors. Many people have been rumored to have magical powers over history, but I think it's a poor way to categorize. If kept, can you propose inclusion criteria? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you said yourself, witchcraft is an entirely different kettle of fish. This is not a crime as we would consider it today (not in Western countries, at least). It can't be proved. It doesn't exist. It is an historical curiosity. And I'm sure I said above that I don't think rumour should be enough for inclusion. Category:People put on trial for being witches may be a solution, but how then would you categorise people like Ruth Osborne (alleged witch)? She was never put on trial, but being an alleged witch is the only thing she's known for. And there are a number of people like her in the category. I'm fine with an alternative title for the category if one can be found, but I think it needs to exist. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely too broad a category. Category: People executed for witchcraft‎ exists and Ruth Osborne (alleged witch) was given a "trial" and defacto executed for it. People put on trial and found innocent is another possible category. But given that people still are accused of it and harmed today in some parts of world, let's not tempt people to put anyone in such a broad categorty. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, Ruth Osborne was murdered for it; no judicial proceedings were involved. It's hardly appropriate to put her into Category:People executed for witchcraft‎. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
she was executed, or I guess lynched - it was a sort of trial-by-mob. What is notable about her is not that she was accused, it that she was lynched and killed by a mob. Do we have lots of these?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, so now we're going to categorise murders by mobs as executions are we? How NPOV of us! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's the issue with witch trials - most were show trials, put on by local authorities or even just church elders. The line between judicial process and mob violence was pretty blurry. Admittedly, in the case of Ruth the perpetrators were put on trial and executed as a result. Such killings like Ruth's are sometimes called "extrajudicial executions", so we could simply broaden the scope, unless we thought it was important to differentiate those people killed after a trial by an authority vs a trial by a bunch of crazed villagers. The result for the condemned was more or less the same.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think it's helpful to characterise mob violence and lynching as "execution", which gives it some legitimacy. We may not agree with witchcraft trials by the authorities, which often included the church in those times, but they were still the authorities and therefore their actions were legal. This sort of killing wasn't legal even then. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In spite of your discomfort, reliable sources do refer to these as "extrajudicial executions" - e.g. [1]. We could alternately rename that category to Category:People executed or killed for witchcraft - the point being, no-one to our knowledge has ever been actually guilty of witchcraft, so separating "legal" killing and mob violence killings isn't useful in this case.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that reliable sources often refer to murders of gangsters by other gangsters as "executions" too. That doesn't mean they are or that they should be categorised as such. The only true executions are those carried out by the appropriate legal authorities after due process. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the english language begs to disagree with you. It's not under our control, and we unfortunately can't say to the world "You're not allowed to use execution for these cases".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I meant we shouldn't in an encyclopaedia! -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think a category of those who were actually put on trial, and who somehow survived, could work, as this has an objective criteria. I'm not that uncomfortable blending extrajudicial executions with judicial ones, especially since the standards of justice were rather lax.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am, as stated above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Female lynching 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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category violates the final rung rule of WP:EGRS, and it has not been demonstrated that women have a special relationship to lynching. If you look at the current contents, it includes people who were lynched mainly because they were African American, because they opposed powerful interests, or because they were accused of being witches. There is already a category for people killed for witchcraft that is gender neutral (Category:People_executed_for_witchcraft), but this broader category doesn't work and tends to ghettoize the women because it's last rung. Merge up, and selectively merge to the witchcraft category if those people aren't already in it if it can be properly termed an execution (or, we could broaden the scope, and allow people lynched for witchcraft into the "executed" category). Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just don't buy this last rung argument which gets used to eliminate any category involving women. This category could easily be further subdivided, based on ethnicity, location ("Female lynching victims in Alabama", "...in Africa", "...in Oklahoma"), religion, age or occupation.
And I'd really like to know the criteria of what merits consideration of a "special relationship" for women. I'm sure if you read the articles of some of the victims, it is likely that their murders were in part due to their identity as women. Seriously, aside from pregnancy and motherhood, how does one demonstrate that conditions for women merit the "special" designation? Because I think this line is incredibly fuzzy and depends on the personal views of the nominator, not any objective criteria. If I'm wrong, please point me to where this special relationship is defined and explained on the policy pages. And, by the way, eliminating gender-based categories doesn't change the fact that women and men are treated differently in society, it doesn't erase sexism. It just erases women's presence and experience on Wikipedia and says that they are just like men (only less so). Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 20:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, you've made this argument several times. I've pointed out that there are over 6000 categories under women-by-occupation so there's absolutely no risk that gendered cats will disappear in general, and probably countless others on women + X. However, you seem to be arguing that for any given topic, we should create and maintain a gendered category of women + X. Past consensus is frankly against you on this, so you need to think about why. For example we could create today a category called "Women and knitting" that has examples of women knitters and women who contributed to the field of knitting but it would ultimately be a bad category as there's no evidence that women perform the job of knitting differently than men; in fact a better cat might be men and knitting since perhaps men are the more rare case in knitting. Women and men have been lynched over the years for a wide variety of reasons - because of their race, because of their supposed witchcraft, because they were gay, and maybe even in some cases because of their gender, etc but I have not seen any evidence nor was able to find any that suggested lynching of women (across instances of lynching, across the centuries and around the world) was sufficiently studied as a topic in its own right to merit a category of women who were lynched. You say you don't like last rung rule but it exists for a very good reason, which is that in the absence of diffusing siblings these cats are much more likely to ghettoize and every time I find one I also find the contents are ghettoized. The contents today don't support a by-state division and it would likely be unwarranted, but last rung is only one reason to kill this cat, the main reason is no sources. Finally stating that deleting a women's category erases the contributions of women is frankly bullshit - during category gate a great many outside commenters felt that the very presence of women-only cats was offensive and their presence made it seem like women were a special type of human instead of 50% of the human race - so there are feminists and writers who believe the exact opposite to you. I take a middle ground - I think if there is an established literature on phenomenon X + women and we can build the category in a way that doesn't violate last rung rule it should remain, and we should also check to see if there is sufficient lit for a men +X cat at the same time! - but saying that deleting a cat erases women is pure rhetoric - one could argue that the absence of a male cat thus erases men by the same token, it's simply NOT true. The way to highlight women's contributions is to write articles about them, not create a women-only category for everything under the sun. In cases where literature doesn't support it, the women-only-likely-to-ghettoize cats make things worse, not better, by suggesting that in spite of evidence to the contrary Wikipedia thinks women are a special kind of victim of lynching. They aren't.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Women in the food industry

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) 00:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Another mezzanine category that brings together a broad set of somewhat occupations + women. If filled up, this would contain waitresses, food company CEOs, farmers, and chefs. While some specific food-involved occupations do have a specific relation to gender, this doesn't work as a broad container as I wasn't able to find evidence that women + "all occupations dealing with food production, distribution and dissemination" has a specific relation to gender (which is the scope of the parent) thus per WP:EGRS delete.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC) Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People in the food industry

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Looks to be recently created, and is a duplicate of an older category that is much more filled out. Merge. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Spiders by European country

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge Sardinia, Sicily, and Crete; no consensus on Canary Islands and Russia. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: This is a followup to the group nomination of 27 similar categories at CFD 2014 March 2, which I closed as "merge all". The categories listed above were omitted from that nomination, so this is a tidyup to finish that job. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Original nominator's rationale: If we categorized every genus/species of spider by every European country it has ever been found in we would have a lot of categories on a lot of articles. In practice, many of the articles about spiders don't have a comprehensive list of which countries the species has been found in (e.g. just saying "present in most of Europe") so any attempt at country-level categorization based on the article content is likely to be very haphazard (e.g. Category:Spiders of Metropolitan France currently only contains 10 articles). In a case like this it's better to have reasonably complete continent-level categorization than to have very incomplete country-level categorization (there are about 50 countries in Europe).
For info: The creator of these categories has been asked several times to avoid overcategorization (e.g. [2]), but is still creating categories at a prodigious rate (e.g. [3]) and created 3 more "Spiders of <country>" categories shortly after this CFD nomination (I've added them to the nomination).
For info: a CFD in 2007 resulted in a merge of European fauna by-country categories into a by-continent category, but the by-country categories were then re-created by a vandal/sockpuppet making edits like [4]; perhaps it's time to clear it out again (and salt?). DexDor (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC) Updated DexDor (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also not Russia, as only partly European, as well as being enormous in area. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Electropop ballads

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge; I'll add a redirect. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Electropop redirects to synthpop, and says they are essentially the same genre. It doesn't make sense to have two categories. Adabow (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Crimes against 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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The contents are all about rape or violence, this category doesn't serve much purpose and duplicates a number of other cats. Most of the rape articles are well categorized elsewhere, so just ensure some of the other ones are in violence against women and subcats. It's possible a delete is sufficient here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC) Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
can you give examples of articles we have on crimes against women that arent violent? I don't see any articles on same. All of the current contents are about violence.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question is do we have sufficient articles about non-violent crimes committed against women because they are women? Even Purse snatching can be violent. Of course women are victims of non-violent crimes but when people speak in the literature about crimes against women they are almost exclusively speaking of some form of violence, whether actual or threatened (eg in the case of forced prostitution). If this category stays we should create Category:Crimes against men for such cases of non-violent crime targeted at men. Ultimately I think neither is needed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's exactly right. It'd be nice if we did but we don't and the suggestion is sensible on that basis. Stalwart111 13:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are already trees as such, but under the Category:Violence against women category. While I agree not all thefts are robberies, can you find sufficient articles about thefts targeting women, or sources that talk about non-violent crimes committed targeting women? Looking at the current contents, all could be moved to the violence category as is.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Carol, we can't keep a category for articles that may arrive someday. What articles are you proposing to add here, exactly? Robbery? Purse snatching? Neither of these are crimes that target women exclusively, and in any case both are considered to be violent crimes, so wouldn't belong in any case. A male exposing himself publicly is pretty weak justification for such a category, and there are of course plenty of examples of women doing the same thing - Indecent exposure is in Category:Sex crimes which seems perfectly reasonable. As for interpersonal fraud, there are a whole lot of men who send money to "Russian" brides who would love to hear about how interpersonal fraud is targeted at women especially - there is a whole industry of people trying to defraud men online. Ultimately this isn't a helpful gendered distinction, the Category:Violence against women is much better and captures the heart of the issue.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More