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 and delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:10th-century establishments in Russia to Category:10th-century establishments in Europe
• Propose deleting Category:1st-millennium establishments in Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 30#Category:9th-century churches in Russia. WP:SMALLCAT: 1 P, 0 C. Also anarchronistic/WP:OR, "Russia" did not yet exist. No prejudice against recreation under the name Category:10th-century establishments in Kievan Rus' (per hypothetical parent Category:10th century in Kievan Rus') if at least 5 items can be found. Upmerging would empty parent Category:1st-millennium establishments in Russia, so that is to be deleted. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete per the proposal as anachronistic and non-WP:NPOV (it’s not OR, it is a major talking point in Russian anti-Ukrainian propaganda).  —Michael Z. 16:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as anachronistic. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 14 August 2023 (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. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:2023 in Monaco motorsport or Propose redirecting Category:2023 in Monaco motorsport to Category:2023 in Monegasque motorsport

Nominator's rationale: There is already another category named as Category:2023 in Monegasque motorsport, which shows the motorsport events in this year in Monaco. So, this category should be removed from the Wikipedia. If it is not removed, it should be redirected to 2023 in Monegasque motorsport category, in which shows the motorsport events in Monaco exactly. @Liz, I Hope that I have finally started the CFD as you wish. Apeiro94 (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. I notice that this has already been implemented. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2023 (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. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Lichens of Central Europe to Category:Lichens of Middle Europe

Nominator's rationale: To align with parent Category:Flora of Middle Europe. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 7#Category:Flora of Central Europe. (Technically can't be speedied because I only just parented it to Category:Flora of Middle Europe, otherwise I would've done so per WP:C2C). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per precedent to use terminology as laid down by the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions for flora categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename. For future reference: as I understand things, having only just added a clearly-justifiable parent does not rule out Speedy processing under C2C. – Fayenatic London 13:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fayenatic london Oh. WP:C2C does state: This should be used only where there is no room for doubt that the category in question is being used for the standard purpose instead of being a potential subcategory. I agree that there is precious little room for doubt that these are clearly child and parent categories of each other. However, it goes on to say: This criterion should be applied only when there is no ambiguity or doubt over the existence of a category naming convention. Such a convention must be well defined and must be overwhelmingly used within the tree. If this is not the case then the category in question must be brought forward to a full Cfd nomination. Although the Category:Flora by distribution categories that follow the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions makes clear we should be following their terminology, Category:Flora of Middle Europe is the only one already using "Middle Europe", and Category:Lichens of Central Europe is the only one still using "Central Europe". Hardly "overwhelmingly used within the tree". So to be on the safe side, I decided on a full CfD nomination as instructed.

  I also reasoned that WP:C2D is quite strict that the main article needs to be the current main article (This applies only if the related page's current name...), and not an article that the nominator has just turned into the main article in order to have it speedied; that would be WP:GAMING. So I didn't feel justified in adding a parent and then C2C-ing it, as I didn't want to be "gaming" it. But this will be helpful for future reference, thanks! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for being careful about "no ambiguity or doubt". In this case IMHO it's still eligible for Speedy, not because of overwhelming numbers but because of the full CFD precedent for plants (which you cited above). – Fayenatic London 14:03, 13 August 2023 (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: merge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Qing dynasty noble titles of women to Category:Qing dynasty noble titles and Category:Noble titles of women
• Propose merging Category:Noble titles of Chinese women to Category:Noble titles of women

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, these two categories only hold two pages. – Fayenatic London 08:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, the categories are currently not populated well, but each of the two categories may well be restored when there is a handful of articles to populate it. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge for now with no prejudice against recreation (NPAR). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2023 (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: wrong venue. @Gadir: Please refer to WP:DRV if you want to challenge the deletion of Category:Crimes against men at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_17#Category:Crimes_against_men. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this category should be restore. There are articles available for the category. Those articles should be collect in this category. Gadir (talk) 07:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The category was deleted per consensus at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_17#Category:Crimes_against_men. The former category members can be seen here. @Gadir and AG47: please list some articles which you think should be included if the category is re-created. – Fayenatic London 08:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close / wrong venue CFD is for deleting, renaming, merging or splitting articles, not for WP:REFUND. At any rate, I suspect most articles nom is thinking about could be placed in Category:Violence against men. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:DRV would be the other place to bring it rather than REFUND. But I think it's OK to bring it here. If the nominator comes out with some suggestions to demonstrate why this category is needed, and how it could be different and better than it was in 2017, then I would post notices on relevant WikiProjects to draw attention to this discussion. But so far all that Gadir has done since my request is to tinker with the arrangement of this page. – Fayenatic London 14:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear, related murders and topics can be added here. Like other category, Crimes against women. Gadir (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Murder = violence, so Category:Violence against men suffices.

    @ Faye okaye. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No use. Crimes against men are not taken seriously as Crimes against women by society. Even news/media articles about such crimes are rare. So it's the same with Wikipedia. In 2017, the category was nominated for deletion and the nominator's rationale was "Whoa. What is this? It's just a random collection of men who have had something happen to them and things like war". The similar category Category:Crimes against women also lists articles mostly about war crimes and neutral articles like Rape, Honor killing & Domestic abuse, which can also happen to men. Those can be added to this category also. There are also plenty of articles about Crimes against men like, Murder of Mohammad Anwar, Sheila LaBarre, Valerie Solanas, Killing of Yao Pan Ma, Koodathayi cyanide murders, Catholic Church sexual abuse cases etc.. But the general consensus was "there is no crime against men because of their gender". Basically, society thinks of crimes against men as "normal/general crime" and crimes against women as "violence against women". As long as society thinks like that, the category will get nominated for deletion. So there is no use creating this category again. I gave up on 2017 itself. AG47 ^Talk 19:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To be fair, the entire category Category:Crimes against women could be merged into Category:Violence against women, because all of these are violent crimes. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • In addition, gender-neutral subcategories and articles are added to gender-specific categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Some observations I've written a lot of articles about domestic and sexual violence, and violence against women, in the last few years, so I know quite a bit about this content area. I've been analysing the category trees Category:Crimes against women and Category:Violence against women in view of a possible merger, and comparing them with Category:Violence against men and the 2017 deletion of Category:Crimes against men. And I must say that it is complicated.

Although Domestic violence against men happens, and justly has its own article, Domestic violence against women redirects to Domestic violence. I am torn about this, because on the one hand I think this is a default assumption we may (or even should?) make unless proven otherwise, and on the other hand I think we shouldn't make that assumption beforehand because we could be wrong. The same is true for Rape of males/Category:Rape of males, while there is no article on rape of females; the default assumption is that females are the victims/survivors, and I am torn about whether that is a good thing as well. Making that default assumption could be a disservice to male and non-binary victims/survivors (definitely a minority, but still important and deserving of recognition), but not making that default assumption could be a disservice to female victims/survivors (definitely the majority, who should be given most attention and recognition).

I don't wanna whataboutism either way. We should be taking violent crimes against men into account, but not as an excuse to only talk about men, and shut down the conversation about women. Similarly, I think we should acknowledge that most types of these violent (gender-based?) crimes are primarily committed against women, but that should not be used as an excuse to shut down the conversation about men either. It's a Catch-22 that I also see happen in real life or online debates elsewhere. It is painful and disappointing sometimes, when no proper nuanced conversation can be had if participants do not agree on the relative importance of gender as a factor, and it becomes a men-vs-women-as-victims/survivors thing.

On the other hand, Category:Rape by type cannot be a subcategory of Category:Crimes against women, because that makes Category:Rape of males a sub-subcategory of Category:Crimes against women, which is a logical contradiction. WP:SUBCAT forbids it.

Also, Occupational sexism is not (so much) about violence but discrimination. Depending on issue and jurisdiction, it is not even necessarily a "crime". It can also happen to trans people and men (though generally much less). So it doesn't really fit this tree. I think this belongs in Category:Employment discrimination, and in fact it's already there.

Motherhood penalty is a more specific term about working mums, but it's a sociological concept, not a "crime" you can get punished for in court, so it doesn't really fit here either and is also best left at Category:Employment discrimination.

I think I'll remove these 3 things from Category:Crimes against women for now, but otherwise I don't have a firm opinion on the matter yet. Let's keep discussing it with nuance and good examples, because it is important that we balance things. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, this is helpful. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2023 (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.