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. Wizardman 14:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Overcategorisation. This is a subcategory of Category:Spanish football clubs 2012–13 season with no obvious purpose; the parent category was not oversized and did not need cutting down, and in footballing terms, there is no such nation as Catalonia. Clubs may self-identify as such, and there is an annual competition for clubs based in Catalonia, but there is no formal recognition of the region as a "nation" by FIFA. In summary, there is no reason for these categories to exist, as they do not help anyone. – PeeJay 00:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 00:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Individual Wiki contributers should avoid trying to define what is and is not a nation. It is open to wide interpretation and FIFA membership is just one definition. There are several nations, for example Monaco and the Vatican City that are not members of FIFA but are members of the UN. The term "there is no such nation as Catalonia" is extremely inflammatory and should be equally avoided. Catalonia has many of the trappings that qualify it as a nation including it's own national football team, it's own language and it's own government. Plus on purely Wiki terms there is more then enough articles to warrant a category and none of the articles were removed from the Spanish equivalents. DjlnDjln (talk) 11:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since the articles were not removed from the equivalent Spanish categories, that is even more reason to delete the Catalonian ones. Nothing other than these clubs' location defines them as Catalan; even their participation in the Copa Catalunya is laughable, as none of the big clubs takes it seriously (I don't think Barcelona or Espanyol even entered this year). – PeeJay 01:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Nothing other than these clubs' location defines them as Catalan" What a ridiculous statement to make. How else are we to define clubs other then where are located. Plus FC Barcelona has always been closely associated with Catalan nationalism, Espanyol has used the Catalan language version of its name for several decades now and the prefixs UE and CE are also taken from Catalan. DjlnDjln (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We define clubs by the national associations to which they are affiliated. Although Cardiff and Swansea play in the English leagues, we define them as Welsh (apart from the obvious reason) because they are affiliated to the Welsh FA. In footballing terms, Catalonia does not exist as a country. – PeeJay 17:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Why should we have a category for one Spanish region and not for (say) Galicia or Andalusia. The question should not be whther or not Calatonia is (or is not) a nation, but how football in Spain is organised. In UK, we have Wales and Scotland categories, because football is not organised on an all-UK basis. For some sports we have anb all-Ireland category, becuase of a sport's organisation. The sub-cats appear not to be about what Catalonia national football team did, but about clubs playing in the Spanish national league. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no reason to have this type of category for only one sub-unit of Spain.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If other regions of Spain had enough football articles to justify similar categories then they to would be acceptable in my opinion. I believe their are similar categories for Basque Country. Football by region categories appear regularly throughout Wiki, why are people so opposed to these Catalan ones in particualar. DjlnDjln (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are no similar categories for seasons in the history of Basque football clubs, but if there were, I would be just as opposed to those. I have no problem with general categories to group articles about football in the autonomous communities of Spain, but in this case, it just isn't necessary. – PeeJay 17:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one is arguing that these categories should be deleted because "other stuff" doesn't exist. They should be deleted because there is no need to subdivide the parent category; it is not of an unmanageable size, and football clubs are not usually categorised by the regional subunit they come from. These clubs aren't even identifiably Catalan, other than the fact that that is where they are based. In footballing terms, they are Spanish, nothing else. – PeeJay 17:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. PeeJay, it is ridiculous to say that these clubs do not regard themselves as Catalan. Aside from the fact that they are all located in Catalonia and the use of the Catalan language in their names, FC Barcelona, Gimnàstic de Tarragona, Lleida Esportiu and CE Sabadell all include a version of the Catalan flag in their coat of arms / shield. Lleida Esportiu also currently use the flags colours in the style of the flag in one of their playing kits. Furthermore there are similar categories for Welsh clubs that play in English leagues. Are you going to argue that Wales is not a nation either ? DjlnDjln (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have never said that these clubs don't identify themselves as Catalan, so don't put words in my mouth. I said they are not identifiably Catalan, i.e. they are not affiliated to any Catalan national football association, mainly because there isn't one. Furthermore, if these teams qualify for European competitions, they do not qualify as Catalan clubs, they qualify as Spanish. And yes, I would argue that Wales isn't a country, except in footballing terms it is. Teams are affiliated to the Welsh national football association (the Football Association of Wales) and can qualify for European competitions as representatives of Wales. Don't try to put some sort of nationalistic spin on this when it isn't applicable. – PeeJay 21:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A case of hairspilting if ever I heard one. They are clearly "identifiable" as Catalan on several grounds. Location, use of Catalan lanuage, use of Catalan flag and colours. And by the way there is a Catalan Football Federation which is the oldest football association in Spain and the all the clubs mentioned are affiliated to it. DjlnDjln (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Catalan Football Federation a national football association? No, because Catalonia is not a nation affiliated to FIFA. Anyway, there are only six articles in Category:Catalan football clubs 2012–13 season, all of which are contained within Category:Spanish football clubs 2012–13 season, which has a total of 35 members. For six articles in a category of 35 to split off into a subcategory and then remain in the parent category is not appropriate. Subcategories are for when the parent category becomes unmanageable at a certain size. Category:Spanish football clubs 2012–13 season is not unmanageable. Why pick Catalonia for the subcategorisation anyway? This is clearly a case of various Wikipedians attempting to advance a particular point of view (i.e. that Catalonia is a separate nation) without the support of reliable, third-party sources. I'm not anti-Catalonia, I'm just anti-people-trying-to-use-Wikipedia-to-serve-their-own-interests. – PeeJay 11:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Again PeeJay, who are you to decide what is and is not a nation. Affiliation to FIFA is only one criteria. As mentioned above there are several. Having your own language, culture, parliament and government are others all of which Catalonia does have. It's totally irrelevant whether the main category is manageable or not. That is not the sole reason for starting subcategories. Equally I could say that you are pushing an agenda to say that Catalonia is not a nation. It is perfectly possible for nations to exist and have a seperated national identity while still forming part of another larger nation. This is the case with the Basque Country and Catalonia within Spain and England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. Other examples are Quebec within Canada and Kurdistan within Iraq. Why is this such a big deal to accept. One way of trying to settle this would be for you and me to travel Barcelona or Cardiff and do a quick survey of the locals. I'd like to see the reaction when you tell them that Wales and Catalonia are not nations. DjlnDjln (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please stick to the football brief? I know you're ignoring it on purpose because it doesn't fit your agenda, but this is a football topic so let's please deal with the issues in football terms. I define Catalonia as a cultural nation, sure, but it is not a recognised nation of the UN or, more importantly in this case, FIFA. You, sir, would do well to concede now to avoid further embarrassment. – PeeJay 02:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Catalonia is not a nation state, but that's a different matter from saying that it is not a nation. Many nations are recognised as such without being sovereign states, such as Wales and Scotland. Whether or or not Catalonia is a nation is a bit of a POV issue, and editors should refrain from trying to impose their own view here. However, regardless of whether or not Catalonia is a nation, it is a culturally distinct region of Spain with a high degree of autonomy. As such, we have an existing category structure for Catalonia, and these categories are part of that structure. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just because we have a pre-existing category structure for the nation of Catalonia does not mean we should have subcategories this low down the tree. Furthermore, as I have stated above, Catalonia's claim to nationhood does not apply to football since it is not recognised as an independent nation by any supra-national authority on the sport. – PeeJay 16:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - UNDUE weight given to a certain region. GiantSnowman 09:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing but the usual nationalist stink. Not remotely comparable to the Home Nations on any level, and in particular on a footballing level when they've been treated separately literally since the game was codified. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Category:Spanish football clubs 2012–13 season is sufficient. Football in Spain is not organised at this level (professional leagues) on a regional basis. Wales, on the other hand, has a separate league system, so the arguments for the case there are not relevant here. C679 20:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Catalonia is not distinct enough in football to make this category worthwhile.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why have these categories not been deleted yet? We have a clear consensus, and I think a month is quite enough time for any more opponents to make themselves known. – PeeJay 13:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus as to whether articles on buildings having notable chimneys should be categorised by that characteristic. In any case this category is now part of a set so it would be improper to delete it at this point without a wider nomination. – FayenaticLondon 17:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Upmerge to both parents. This is the only by country breakout here. So either we remove this one or create more of the series. The choice is up for discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looks like someone has added 6 additional by country categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The cutoff used to create those was apparently 2 per country. I guess we need to create the remaining ones. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Assuming none of the current contents of "chimneys by country" are in Category:Chimneys we will still end up with less than 100 in the parent if we upmerge all, so we should upmerge.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment there is no 100 rule anywhere Hmains (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However if you look at the created subcategories, most of the articles are not about chimneys. They are about power plants. As I went through many of these articles a while ago, I think that many of the chimneys may well be notable but may only be covered in a sentence within the article. So is that sufficient to categorize by? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neither of the articles in this category are on chimneys, so the category should just be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep There is a now a full set of sibling categories that match this. And it is not unusual for odds and ends of industrial infrastructure (such as towers) to not have names or articles on their own; instead, the buildings they are attached to have articles and thus navigation categories. Hmains (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We categorize articles by what they are, not what parts of the thing the article is on are. We should clearly delete this category because it has no articles on chimneys in it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. This strikes me as a fairly risky category, but there's no consensus to delete here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category and similar categories (such as Category:Rape survivors) have repeatedly been deleted on the basis of this 2007 CfD discussion. Now the category has been re-created with the rationale that "I don't believe that a discussion from 2007 can serve as a rubber stamp to delete this category via G4" (Category talk:Rape victims#Rationale) and a slightly tighter definition of the category's scope. I would recommend deletion because of the earlier CfD discussion, and because of the WP:BLP issues involved with this category. I also think the category's scope is hopelessly vague. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 21:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DElete This category has inherent BLP issues and is the worst category I have yet to come across, if we can source someone has suffered rape we can put that in the article but to have it as a category seems very strange, perhaps of interest to ppl who feed on the suffering of others but I cannot see any rational encyclopedic use for it. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBoxtalkcontribs 22:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suggest, per BLP, that the scope be delimited for BLPs for requiring 2 RS for two criteria: A self-identification as a victim and a judicial finding of rape. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wolfowitz's idea would be helpful but hard to police and enforce and the idea that in the meantime some living person who didnt fit the criteria was labelled thus is deeply worrying. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBoxtalkcontribs 01:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom, useful -- if sourced -- in biography (and if the person self-identifies as such), but again this is usually not "defining" - what might be defining is what they did afterwards (so for example, we have Category:Rape_victim_advocates).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know what all Squeakbox has come across; perhaps a reading of Lucretia might enlarge their experience (and they might wish to read The Story of Lucretia (Botticelli)). I find that 2007 discussion to be way outdated and one-sided to begin with. The strict focus on BLP issues smacks of recentism: as if there haven't been notable rape victims, whose notability derives in great part of their status as rape victims, in the last 5000 years or so. But I'll take the 2007 points as summarized by the closer, since that's what Malik is pointing to.
"verifiability issues with determining the category's contents": that's always a problem, no more here than in issues like sexual orientation or ethnicity. These issues are in no way insurmountable. This issue is heavily slanted toward recentism.
"significant definitional issues": this applies only in the case of BLPs, and is, again, not different from ethnicity etc. Self-identification is one bit, but "rape" is in itself a category that has legal definitions supporting its definition. Here also, the issue is heavily slanted toward recentim.
"BLP issues": more on that below.
"no compelling encyclopaedic value": I don't buy this at all. Anyone who reads, say, Cassandra, might well wonder what other women from mythology were victims of rape. Categories are the perfect tool for performing such searches across Wikipedia: it's how libraries work as well. For the heck of it, go to the LoC and search for Subject = "Rape victim": it has 245 subcategories.
the material is "simply not suited" for categorization and should be left to text: again, that applies to sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc.
My main problem here is that the BLP angle, which is a serious concern but it's nothing we can't handle (I just chastised somebody who added the category to Tyler Perry--it's not verified in the article), will override all of human history, art, and literature. Just because a few fools will add the category willy-nilly, or just because it's possible that someone gets on a soapbox, we can't have this eminently useful category? As I was preparing the re-introduction of this category (it having been deleted recently, when it was called Category:Historical rape victims, the adjective pointing toward history, not the tabloids), I had to learn just how many rape victims there are in our history. That the more recent victims now populate most of the category is neither my concern nor my problem--if it were up to me, I'd have a category reserved for people who've been dead for centuries, to avoid such issues, but apparently that's not granted. OK, I gotta go. I may come back to this. Malik: I want a category that allows students and other interested readers to click through and find all those victims (Judith needs to be in here as well). BLP problems can be handled; note the lengthy warning I placed on the category. Deletion here is not the answer. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment There may certainly encyclopedic value to understanding which people in history were victims of rape and in understanding how it affected their lives, but we have to go back to WP:DEFINING - is this victim status something third party sources regularly and consistently define the subject as having - because that is where categories come in? Take Madonna (entertainer) for example - I didn't know she was a victim of rape, but that's because 99.99% of articles about her never mention this incident - it's certainly not what she is famous or known for. If you want to educate students, a category system that can be added to at will (and that is difficult to manage membership in) is a terrible solution IMHO - write an article instead. The problem is, this category is about a very sensitive and delicate thing which has happened to someone (actually many people if you believe the statistics), but not all of them would like that to be one of the 10 categories that 'defines' them at the bottom of their page. I think the BLP issues outweigh any supposed encyclopedic value, which again is much better served in a survey article that could cover this sensitive subject in the detail and nuance it deserves.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Madonna is categorized as such no more; thanks for pointing that out. But note also that categories are often used very, very loosely. She was also categorized as "American cosmetics businesspeople" and "Kabbalists", things which in no way define her (if she or anyone else could ever be defined). Once more, I am primarily interested in historical rape victims, which is why I named the category that, initially. If the thing is changed to be only historical I would have no problem with that at all. For the historical victims I categorized the event is determinative, in part (Artemisia Gentileschi) or in whole (Philomela). At the same time, doing away with the category in part restores victimhood to people like Stephen Donaldson (activist) and Samira Bellil: it is entirely conceivable that a person wants to find out if rape victims had become rape activists, and this category helps in that (really, "victims turned activists" should be a subcat one way or the other). Wikipedia will never be without BLP violations, but continued vigilance keeps it at bay, and so it may for this category, if it stays and continues to include living and recently deceased people (by "recent" I mean in the last century or so). Drmies (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course I realize there are lots of fluff categories - but this particular category, and the reason it has been deleted so many times, is because it is so personal and controversial - there isn't room for much debate that Madonna is a "cosmetics businessperson" if she sells a line of cosmetics, but rape has many different definitions - which have changed over time - and different legal standards - which makes black and white categorization (e.g. X is a "victim", Y is not) particularly delicate - that's the problem with categories - there's no fuzzy grey line, you're either in or out.
What happens if we define some standard for inclusion in this category, then famous rape victim Z is *not* included because they don't hew to the standard - what do we do? Refine the standard, or leave them out? For example, why have you removed Madonna? She does claim to be a victim of a forced sexual encounter, though I'm not sure anyone was ever prosecuted for the crime. Does that make her less of a victim somehow, or not worthy of inclusion? At what point does being raped "define" you, vs just being something terrible that happened? I would surmise that how much a rape influences someone is rather separate from how much the media and 3rd party sources talk about it - it's quite possible there are people like Madonna who boil inside because of that experience and that it influences her every waking moment, even if the media never mentions it - while on the other hand some person (in)famous only because they were raped by a movie star, that event has perhaps passed into their memories and they don't think of it much. This gets the heart of what a potential mess this category is - because by including someone in it, we're saying "this is a defining characteristic of who they are" - and that's basically an impossible judgement to make esp based only on 2nd and 3rd party sources.
Your argument that deleting a category in wikipedia somehow "restores victimhood" doesn't hold much water - it's just a navigational system, it is not intended to be source of truth - which again goes back to the argument to listify/write and article and delete the category. An article can be much more nuanced about these things. Take Samira Bellil for example - I've never heard of her before reading that article, but what I came away with was not "Oh, here's a woman who was raped how horrible", it was "Wow, here's a woman who endured some horrible things, but she spoke out, she founded organizations, she rallied political leaders, and she made a difference." I mean, she was chosen as a Marianne (a famous female symbol in France) There are plenty of other women like Samira Bellil that we will never know the names of, that were subject to the same violence - but the reason we talk about Samira and others like her is because of what she they did about it, not what was done to them.
Finally, Philomela definitely does not belong - she is not a real person, and in general I don't think real people should be categorized alongside fictional ones - separate cats should be created if necessary. But why not take a stab at a page instead?
History just means what happened in the past, and that includes 1 second ago - so the idea of a 'historical' category doesn't make sense to me either.
Finally, just another point which I've noticed in other discussions of a similar ilk, where an academic argument is made (e.g. This is useful information to let people know that so and so was raped, I had no idea it happened to so many people) - I can see this argument, but this is also potentially damaging - suppose we have such a category and there are 100 names in it, out of the tens of thousands of biographies in wikipedia - so then people look at it and say "Ah, well, I guess all those people were raped, and no-body else famous was" - Bullsh*t! I guarantee you, there are many biographies in wikipedia of people who have been raped or endured other horrible things, but we don't have sources, they didn't report it, etc etc, so having such a category will tend to *downplay* the actual extent of this happening - which is again another reason IMHO to delete.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's wall-of-text enough. Madonna's career is not defined by rape, though one (only one) author says so. The career of Gentilleschi is (and denying that simply means that someone doesn't know her and hasn't studied her, as is that of Bellil. "Historical" means "one second ago" is nonsense: "historical" means someone from the past who is meaningful. Saying that Philomena is not a notable rape victims (she also goes by Philomela) isn't much different from God is not an important god. Your argument that it's not fair because not everyone would be correctly categorized (yet) is a bit odd. If that were valid, we shouldn't have categories at all until the encyclopedia is finished. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the rationale hasn't changed since 2007 and now WP:BLP is in force which basically forestalls such a category - who will we labelling as rapists next? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is kind of exasperating. There isn't anyone here who seems to read what I wrote. BLP forestalls nothing, first of all. But second, how do I put this gently? I don't care if I have a category that includes living people. For all I care it's called "Rape victims who if they lived at all died more than four centuries ago". But it was suggested to me I drop the "historical" from the name, though that term would be very useful if it isn't read as myopically as is done above. Cassandra is not going to protest, Carlossuarez, nor are Chrysippus and Dinah and Pamela and Lucretia and Tamar and Susanna. For pete's sake. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Something called rape victims is calling for inclusion of all matter that will be BLP nightmares - let's see how wiki fared during the Duke LaCrosse episode for just a clue as to the problems you're inviting. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The hatnote in the category likely will not prevent users from adding BLP articles to the category. Hatnotes in categories are generally disregarded, from what I have seen (probably because one does not need to read the hatnote to add the category to an article). So if the category is going to exist, it might be useful to come up with some sort of name that would prevent this from happening. I'm not sure what such a name would be, however. All the ones I can think of create different problems which probably outweigh the benefit, as does the previously mentioned Category:Historical rape victims. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The decision has been consistently to delete categories like this. Besides the potential to mislabel people, there is also the problematic issues of a-changing definition of race and b-do we require external support, if the supposed perpetrator was aquitted on grounds the incident was not a rape, is there any satisfying way to settle the matter? The whole thing is a mess and will best be treated by deleting the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally I can see this category becoming problematic if a-people try to put "statutory rape victims" in it, and this is where it as a historical category gets really messy. People can find what will pass as "reliable sources" claiming some people in history were victims of statutory rape, when even if a sexual relationship could be proven, which in many of these cases it can't, it would not have been illegal as statutory rape in the time and place. As a historical category this invites us to try to apply modern definitions to the past, or to see the past through a modern lense. Either way it is horrible as a category. There might be scope for an article List of historical victims of rape, but it will not work as a category, the whole thing just has way too many problems.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are no other categories that explicitly exclude living people. There is no realistic way to keep living people out, and anyway, as a historical category definition problems will just make the whole thing a mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment Drmies sez: "Cassandra is not going to protest, Carlossuarez, nor are Chrysippus (mythology) and Dinah and Pamela and Lucretia and Tamar (2 Samuel) and Susanna (Book of Daniel)" We also have Philomela in the cat. Per Wikipedia:Categorization, "Articles on fictional subjects should not be categorized in a manner that confuses them with real subjects." All of those names are either mythological figures, characters in the bible (nb: I'm not going to get into a long discussion on whether characters in the bible were "real" or not - that's for scholars - for the purposes of wikipedia these should IMHO not be considered as real people but more as allegorical), or semi-legendary figures like Lucretia. As such, if this category remains, we should definitely create a separate category for Category:Rape victims in Fiction to cover the myths and characters such as these - we should not mix them with real people that we have sourced information on.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep essentially per Drmies, who I think summarizes my views well - not surprising since his creations of the category (both versions) were done in discussion with me. I would prefer the "historical" marker in the category name, but not strongly so. I think limiting it to people dead, perhaps even long dead, is quite reasonable and would reduce the concern for BLPs. LadyofShalott 23:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and perhaps rename. If Drmies' goal with this category is to limit it's population to historically important rape victims or rape victims whose rapes were historically important, then it might be best to go with the Category:Historical rape victims that was floated and rejected when the category was initially being discussed. Segregating those figures who might seem fictional from those who might seem real would not be very helpful because, especially in the case of the ancient examples, the border between fiction and fact is murky, and the significance of the crime in society was not limited by the victim's status as real or lessthanreal. Cassandra and Lucretia wouldn't belong in the same category if we had a Category:Rape victims in fiction (because Lucretia is neither fictional nor the subject of a work of fiction), but given the importance of both crimes in Greek and Roman discourses on their own virtue and villainy, the encyclopedic value of this category would be greatly diminished if one couldn't get to one from the other via the topic of rape. If we do put a border for this category around the early modern period, I would be fine with that, but since like Lucretia many of these later victims are filtered through and contribute to the language of the rape topos in which she looms large, I again think a separation of mythish and factish folks is unproductive. Also, and this is distinct from my primary objection to deletion, I find the potential misuse or abusive of a category an unconvincing reason for deletion. There are people around here who edit articles, and they would deal with misuse or abuse just as they deal with abuse in actual article content. davidiad{ t } 01:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Consider Rename This is an important and defining characteristic for the individuals included here and an appropriate aid to navigation across these articles. As with any such characteristic, appropriate reliable and verifiable sources demonstrating identification in this category are needed and any questionable cases should be dealt with at the talk page of the associated article. Alansohn (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to Category:Victims of sexual crimes. Also remove all living (or recently dead) people unless they have publicly identified themselves as such of their own free will and outside legal processes. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Only one possible entry. None of the label's other singles made it anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Redirect it as lower casing.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The capitalisation of Partisans is well-sourced in the academic literature.. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support in general, however it doesn't seem a good idea to mix the battles and the people, so the battles should probably be moved to some other (sub)category, e.g. 'Battles of the Slovene Partisans'. 'Triglavka' snould be moved to a subcategory too. --Eleassarmy talk 23:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree we don't need it, but elsewhere we are working towards a Category:Yugoslav Partisans personnel, which follows the commonly used "Fooian military personnel" formulation. Suggest we upmerge this one into that. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As it has been determined that we need a separate article for Slovene Partisans, because they were largely autonomous, we should also retain a separate category for this article and the topics related to it. --Eleassarmy talk 13:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not so sure. Does having an article about them mean that they need a separate category tree? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. A implies B does not mena B implies A. We do not need categories to match every article. If we did not have a seperate article we probably should not have a category, but that does not mean the article forces us to have a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category has been moved from its current location to the target (both in unhyphenated forms) once before, and the same arguments apply now as then for this recreated version: That a video game is free seems unworthy of categorization; we don't categorize that things are not free, or by how not-free they are....rename this to be more inclusive of open source games that are not free, and not worry about free games that are not open source.[1]The BushrangerOne ping only 10:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom "Open source" is the proper term. Dimadick (talk) 07:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
procedural comment there are many other instances of the usage of 'free, open source X' in this tree - I suggest we do a complete nom of all of the game cats. In this case, 'free' refers to 'free software' as defined by the Free Software Movement, not 'free' as in zero cost. (eg. free as in speech, not free as in beer). Open source software is regularly called FOSS (Free and open source software). So it's really just a sort of ideological divide and word war from the open source world that is now reproducing itself in wikipedia, and the result is a bit of chaos in the category names - some are 'open source' while some are Category:Free software. I'm not proposing to sort this all now - but at least make the games sub-tree consistent.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. There is no reason to specify beyond "open-source". Wikipedia is not a consumer category and does not list prices, let alone categorize by them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep as is. Wizardman 15:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The current title is inconsistent with the category hierarchy, which generally uses "physicians"; this is particularly a problem when using {{Fooian fooers}} to generate categories, since this requires the name of the parent category (in this case Category:Physicians to be consistent with the name of the national subcategory, which would be Category:Saudi Arabian physicians. R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – the category hierarchy Category:Physicians by nationality uses the term appropriate to the country, and the nom presents no country-specific rationale. This is a good argument against the use of the template {{Fooian fooers}} which I have often found a nuisance. Oculi (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that it's Saudi Arabia, I doubt that either "physician" or "medical doctor" is actually the country-specific term. Doesn't it then depend on who's doing the translating? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- "physician" has a different meaning in UK and US, so that we should not be applying the US meaning beyond US. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment before voting, we should determine what is the common english-language term applied to this specialty in Saudi Arabia. Perhaps a few emails to some of the subjects of wikipedia articles would suffice? Otherwise we're debating in a vacuum. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename the entire tree to "medical doctor" as the clearest term, identifiable to a English-second-language person with generic international English, with only English-speaking localities using the local variant. (and also used in American English, to distinguish medical doctors from other sorts of non-medical doctors) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really do not know about the Saudi Arabian issue. However, I really do not see that it would be problematic to rename the American category to Category:American medical doctors. It is not like any American person would stand up and say "we do not call people medical doctors here, that is a foriegn imposition", at least not in my experience.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the IP, and rename the entire tree to "medical doctor", which is an unambigupus and internetionally-understood term. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that if we did that, there would be the clear indidication that having a MD would be required to be included. - The BushrangerOne ping only 00:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think anyone, anywhere would realiztically object to us classifying in this matter. It would not imply people need MDs, any more than it would imply that everyone with an MD would qualify. In fact, there would not even be a reason to exclude quacks, if they actually worked as a medical doctor then we should so classify them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename entire tree to Category:Medical doctors per BHG & the IP address. "Medical doctors" is much clearer and better understood than "physicians". --Lquilter (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right, but you will have to nominate the physicians categories to bring about the change, we can't decide a new consensus from just this one category being discussed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:34, 2 May 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:Wheat industry of Western Australia[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Speedy rename C2E. In the future, you can nominate categories like this at WP:CFDS. The BushrangerOne ping only 15:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Although historically it was always wheat - grain transport, storage and export is now more complex than simply wheat - grain segregation is a major issue in storage management - this should be a speedy as I was the creator of the earlier category and it is non controversialsats 06:29, 31 March 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.
