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.
Oppose. This gets into WP:BLP issues. Some consider drag derogatory. There are three closely related topics here female impersonators, drag queens and cross dressing. I suppose part of this may be cultural in various parts of the world as to what term you use. Some of these men impersonate specific females and to label them as drag queens is at best inaccurate. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would not oppose that category at this time, but how would all of these be arranged in the tree structure? I'm not sure what the top parent is, probably cross dressing since these are all forms of that. And as the IP points out below we also have at least one one cross dressing category. BTW, I don't know who you are since you did not sign your comment. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, note above is mine.Naraht (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not all drag queens are female impersonators, they just dress in women's clothing and wear women's makeup. The ones that try to appear to be female as well are female impersonators and drag queens. And then there are people who impersonate specific females... and people who crossdress but don't wear makeup or do anything else... Note there's also Category:MTF cross-dressers -- 05:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.151.11 (talk)
Oppose Some of these are males impersonating specific females, they don't really fit under the "drag" term. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. In this case we have a redirect when we really should have two separate articles. The way to fix things is to create an additional article on female impersonation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 27 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.
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:Delete. This is a category for a scientific society's awards. As such, it's both a sort of eponymous category, and a small-with-limited-potential-for-growth category. Much better to simply list the relevant awards on the Biophysical Society page, and link therefrom. The articles on the awards themselves are best categorized with related awards, rather than segregated in a separate category of their own. Lquilter (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS -- If kept, it needs to be renamed to lowercase "awards", because the category X awards is not itself a proper name. --Lquilter (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. That page refers to "the awards programs" in lowercase. The only reference that's a full proper name references a "Biophysical Society Awards Committee", which is a proper name -- but for a committee, not the collective set of awards. The individual awards are all individually titled, and the articles on the individual awards here are also individually titled. (See below.) It would be pretty unusual for a collective set of awards to be given its own proper name, and I don't see any reason why it would be so here. ... But more importantly, the category shouldn't exist! The list I include below has 9 awards, which is pretty much the definition of "small with limited potential for growth" in WP:OCAT.
Keep but rename to Category:Biophysical Society awards. This is not the usual kind of award category: it is a category of awards, not of award winners (which we do not allow). If they are NN awards, the appropriate course is to nominate them for AFD, which if successful will empty the category and lead to its deletion. My guess is that the awards are made by the Society, but the selection is delegated to a committee of the board of the Society. That is not unusual. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PKI, why isn't "small with limited potential for growth" or "eponymous" applicable here? I didn't argue WP:OCAT#Award; as you say, it's not an award (winners) category. --Lquilter (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Small category that is not part of any general scheme. The Dayhoof award is not even notable enough for it to be mentioned on the bio of one of the two winners for whom we have an article. Part of me wonders if it is notable enough to even have an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 29 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.
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: The first is a container category credited created to contain the second, and they are both too vague to determine whether an article would belong. I would say that the present member of the second category, Recognition of marital rape in Pakistani law, doesn't belong. Even in Moslem countries and Sharia law, rape is gender-neutral. If a description was given for the categories, I wouldn't nominate them just because they are presently empty, but, with no description.... — Arthur Rubin(talk) 16:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete allCategory:Gender and society is essentially a duplicate in scope of Category:Gender which covers all aspects of gender in different parts of society.Category:Gender-related legal issues could possibly keep, but need more details on desired scope and potential contents. If such is not forthcoming, delete. New content has recently been added that convinces me this is unworkable - we already have Category:Gender equality which is a broader topic - and of course men's rights and women's rights which are also far more than legal issues. We already have a rather confusing tree in the gender and human rights space and these ones add nothing new and threaten to confuse things further and lead to inconsistent/incomplete categorization. In addition, the category creator has been active but has not deigned to participate here to defend the category nor explain it's scope or intent. Delete.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete The amount of these almost warrants a RFC to be opened. I supports Obiwankenobi's rational above as my reason for deleting. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 21:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a mishmash with little inclusion criteria. For example China's one-child policy is here, but that is on the face gender neutral, its gender implications come from societal views on gender, not legal rules on gender.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, gender and race are completely different societal issues, and we have different category trees for them, there is no obligation or need to keep them synchronized (in other words, this is not like "X in the US" and "X in Britain") - the content is quite different - . Secondly, Category:Genderalready covers the scope of Category:Gender and society - we don't need to change established categorizations just to synchronize, and I see no value in a subset here - when we have Category:Gender in Egypt that implies Category:Gender in Egyptian society and the contents are the same. Third, you have completely misinterpreted BHGs warning - when a category is under discussion it is completely appropriate to add a description of the category AND add relevant articles to the category, and you have been asked to do so. What you shouldn't do is empty the category, nor create NEW categories in the same tree once a tree has been nominated (in that case, "Women by organization" and several "Women of company X" had been nominated for discussion, so it was inappropriate and time-wasting to create "Women of company Y" while discussion was pending esp since it was trending towards delete.)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:34, 1 April 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.
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. i.e. do not rename. There is a consensus to keep the categories as they are. It is also worth noting that the nominator's claim that the proposal "is in line with most other criminals categories" doesn't seem to reflect the reality of Category:People by criminal conviction, where for example Category:People convicted of fraud is a child of Category:Fraudsters, and both have subcats by nationality. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This rename is in line with most other criminals categories. We should be clear in the category name on inclusion criteria, which should require either a conviction, or for historical personages, a consensus of scholars that the person in question was guilty of committing rape, even if they weren't convicted for such. This might also apply to serial killers, who were charged and convicted of murder but who committed rape during their crimes, in those cases those people should remain in these categories. Category:People convicted of rape is no longer needed if this passes and can be merged to parent, and keeping Category:Rapists as the overall parent category seems reasonable given the other contents, e.g. Category:Fictional rapists (I don't think we require a conviction for those, etc). Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note - added statutory rapists to the nomination.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Per the reasons given by the nominator, the proposed title also sounds more formal and encyclopedic than just the label 'rapists' by itself. Mar4d (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you sure we can have people in a category called convicted of rape when they weren't. Example: East Coast Rapist- how could you put an unidentified criminal as being convicted of rape?WikiOriginal-9 (talk)
There will be some exceptional cases where we put someone in this category who hasn't yet been convicted - for example,if they killed themselves after committing the deed, or were convicted on murder charges even though it was widely believed/known that they committed rape as well. We can handle this through inclusion criteria at the top - but the rename is aligned with most other categories of this type, and the bulk of people in this category *should* be those who have been convicted.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep As WikiOriginal-9 said, some articles aren't as simple as that. Not everybody went through the system and was convicted properly and some rapists are only found to have been rapists after their death. It'd cause too many hassles with the relocation of articles --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(note: changed your !vote to make it more clear) - there is no need to relocate any articles, anyone who truly qualified for this category in the past would still qualify for it now. Cases of people who died before a rape conviction could come in can still be added if scholarly consensus is that they were guilty of rape (this would hold for historical figures also).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Surely a conviction of rape has to happen when a person is alive? Rapists is more accurate and covers people who weren't actually convicted (like the exception Mythological rapists) Not every rapist is legally convicted of being so for all manner of reasons (i.e. crooked legal systems, them dying before the evidence coming to light...) Rapists covers all of these as well as those legally convicted --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The same could be said of any crime. Especially given the charged nature of rape accusations, we should be explicit in the category name that this is intended to cover people who are convicted. If not convicted, then at least those with a clear consensus that they were guilty of same (and also notable for having been raped). Mythological rapists is a completely different issue, for obvious reasons.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what you mean about the charged nature of rape accusations. Surely rapist is explicit that it is for people who are convicted, especially as it links to categories covering those who aren't on the category page --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC) @Obiwankenobi:[reply]
Yeah, potentially, but that would be another discussion. For now we have two trees - Category:Rapists and Category:People convicted of rape - and since the rapists tree is more filled out, it gives the impression we have a lot of rapists and just a few who are actually convicted, which I don't believe is the case, so this nom is an attempt to rationalize this.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the category is intended to cover everyone generally considered to be a rapist, not just those legally convicted, it should say so, giving these categories a downright misleading title is just confusing matters, and could lead to disputes about how we categorise some people in future. PatGallacher (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then would you agree with merging the Category:People convicted of rape categories? I just don't see the need or value of both. A previous discussion on this issue, where I proposed the opposite nomination, ended in no-consensus, with several people suggesting the rename to "people convicted of", hence this nom.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand if you want all categories like "Fooian rapists" to change to "Fooian people convicted of rape", why have "People convicted of rape" merged into to "Rapists"? It seems like your aim was to get rid of the "rapist" categories and focus more on the crime than the person. LizRead!Talk! 19:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is that, as a top-level category, Category:Rapists can still contain Category:Mythological rapists and Category:Fictional rapists, we don't need (nor will ever get) convictions for those. The intent is not to get rid of rapist categories, it is simply to rename them to make their scope more explicit - either a conviction, or a strong scholarly consensus that the person was indeed guilty of rape.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Their scope is explicit in the naming though. A rapist is a person who is convicted of rape or a person that rapes. You still haven't answered what you meant by "the charged nature of rape accusations" --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC) @Obiwankenobi:[reply]
I agree with this. There really doesn't seem to be any reason to do it, especially as this category change means rapists who were not took to court for various reasons (i.e. rape is proven after their death, they are in a position of power that prevents them from being charged etc.) are excluded. The act of raping happens separate to the prosecution --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is misguided. The inclusion criteria I proposed would still allow such cases in, but I believe they would be more the exception than the rule. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see the need. Category:Rapists implies that they are convicted of (or indeed did) rape, and changing the categorisation puts way too much faith in a world whose legal systems have frequently acquited rapists --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the proposed change would mean that unconvicted rapist-serial killer Fred West would no longer be categorized as an English rapist. He undoubtedly raped, and it was a major part of his crimes. Jim Michael (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This is just one of many articles that will have to be 'exceptions' in the proposed new category naming --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, I'm afraid you may have misunderstood. Such a person would remain in the category Category:English people convicted of rape, as the category inclusion criteria would be broad enough to include those "convicted" by history or scholarship as it were. I just really don't think there's much value in separating out those who were convicted by a court from those who are known to be guilty but never got their day, but the bulk of our cases will be the former rather than the latter, so we use that as the description. I tried to reverse this a while back (move it all to rapists), but got no consensus, instead there was a suggestion to merge in the opposite direction, hence this nomination.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we are the ones to convict people of crimes. He was never convicted in court of rape.WikiOriginal-9 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Convicted means convicted by a court. Wikipedia cannot 'convict' people of crimes that they have not actually been convicted of. The cats that do not have convicted in their name include unconvicted people. Jim Michael (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The current names are too open to people being tagged who were never convicted. I especially see this as a threat with the staturtory rape category because some seem to want to retroactively apply this to historical figures who in no way could have been guilty of such a crime based on the laws that existed where they lived. Categories should have clear titles linked to verifiable facts, convictions are verifiable, that someone actually committed a crime is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The act is more important than the conviction, and rape isn't just a crime, but a physical action and a violation. It's true that rape laws differ in different societies, and that certain historical figures could not be guilty of such a crime under the laws in which they live, but it doesn't make the act less significant (or abhorrent) If anything there could be a Subcat of Category:Rapists that covers it, if we have to make the change (i.e. Rapists before rape laws or something)
Renaming the entire subcategory based on the legal system and how it treats rape is hugely problematic for reasons you touched on - some civilisations failed to properly convict rapists, but it doesn't mean they are not rapists --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is Articles must have reference citations to back up asserted criminal (and other facts) and that is good enough for the articles to be placed, and remain, in the current categories. No encyclopedic navigation purpose is served by reducing the contents of these categories by 90% or so, making the articles virtually impossible to find. Hmains (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Is Moshe Katsav a person convicted of rape? Yes, and nothing would ever change the answer to that question. Is he a rapist? Unclear. He was convicted because the courts thought the testimony of his victims seemed more reliable than his own (testimony which the public was not exposed to). Many Israelis think the conviction was incorrect. And a conviction may, at some point, be overturned. In case of an overturned conviction, we may end up with a major BLP issue for a long time. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose. It is one thing to judiciously include articles in such categories (i.e. only if the person is actually notable for it), it is quite another to keep renaming categories into more and more awkward circumscriptions of what is really meant just out of some diffuse impulse of political correctness. Don't play semantic games with category names, please. It is enough if you must play these games with article prose, but categories are supposed to be something pragmatic and usable. --dab(𒁳) 09:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/rename all per nom; alternatively reverse merge, but include a requirement for conviction (etc) in each hednote. The reason why we require conviction before categorisation is that including a person merely accused is potentially libellous, which cannot be allowed for BLP. The inclusion, of persons who have died unconvicted but where their guilt is clear, would not be a problem since libel is not (in common law) a remedy available to the representatives of decaeased persons. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there's really no need to change a category that contains both people convicted of rape and people known to have raped to one that just contains people convicted of rape (but include the others anyway as 'exceptions') It just causes confusion for editors and undermines the purpose in having wikipedia categories covering rape in the first place. Consensus seems to be divided for this --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, whether any of these people did in fact rape should be decided on a case-by-case basis (and it does not fall to Wikipedia to do so). On the other hand, someone can in no uncertain terms and with no room for alternative interpretation be convicted by their legal system, whether they did the crime or not. Some cases (e.g. Jeffrey Dahmer) will be open-and-shut, others may not be such a sure thing, and it is for the latter group of people where these categories as they are currently named can be a problem. People who don't believe they did it can remove the category, and others who are certain they did can try to enforce its keeping, which can lead to classic edit warring behavior. LazyBastardGuy 19:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What has not been reasonably answered is that if the proposal is successful, how would we categorise unidentified serial rapists such as the Batman rapist and identified, unconvicted rapists such as Fred West? Jim Michael (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have answered this, which is, they would be placed in the (people convicted of X) categories. We would simply change the inclusion criteria to include people w/o formal convictions but who are presumed guilty by scholars. I just fail to see the value of having two split category trees.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We could possibly have another category for people suspected, no matter how strongly or reasonably, of rape. We have to keep this as objective as possible. LazyBastardGuy 20:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although I see what the nominator is aiming for, it really doesn't seem sensible to establish a set of cats which requires people not convicted of a crime to be categorised as having been convicted of it.Eustachiusz (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is its greatest problem, it's proposing something entirely different to what Category:Rapists has been used for --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nelson Mandela was convicted of crimes he did not commit. He is categorized for them because they are defining points in his career. Being convicted of rape, whether justly or not, would be a defining point in someone's life, I would think. LazyBastardGuy 03:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Convicted means declared guilty in court. We cannot include people in a convicted cat if they have not been convicted. We do not and cannot have 'suspected of' cats. The point of the criminal cats that do not include convicted in their titles is that they include unconvicted people who were certainly guilty. The rapist cats are not the only ones of this type. The murderer cats are similar, because they include unconvicted murderers including Andrew Cunanan, and unidentified murderers, including Jack the Ripper. To say that the rapist cats need to be brought in line with other criminal cats by only including convicted people is therefore inaccurate. Jim Michael (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mandela was guilty of the crimes he was convicted of. Even his supporters, who say he was justified in his actions, recognise that he used force and sabotage and that the terrorist group he founded, Umkhonto we Sizwe, killed many innocent civilians. Jim Michael (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, bad example, but still, "declared guilty in court" just means an official declaration of guilt, whether it's true or not. It would hold whether the person was convicted in the United States or North Korea. The general public consensus, whether this is favorable to the subject or not, may be that someone is/was suspected to have done it, and all we're saying by that is, "The general opinion (of the public, scholars, scientists, etc.) is/was that this person likely did the crime," without endorsing it. To be accused of rape alone is a very defining point in one's career/life, and generally has a hand in defining the public reputation (if not the very character) of the person in in question, even if they were vindicated by history. We can say objectively that so-and-so believes this, that or the other without saying we endorse that belief. LazyBastardGuy 15:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should not have a "accused of rape" category - that's a BLP nightmare. I think we can divide rapists into about 4 categories:
People convicted of rape in a court of law, where the conviction was not overturned (if it was overturned, they should probably be removed and put in the category for overturned convictions)
People convicted of other (more serious) crimes, even though they are widely believed/known to have raped during their crimes. This is sometimes the case with serial killers, who are prosecuted and tried for murder instead of rape.
Unknown/mystery rapists, yet to be caught
People who are known to have raped and there is a scholarly consensus that they did so, but they were never formally convicted - for example, if someone raped, killed, and then committed suicide - it is usually not up for much dispute whether they did or didn't rape their victim.
Thus, if we leave things as the status quo, then "Rapist" should contain everyone who was in cases 2-4, while "people convicted of" is just the case 1. I think it's not useful to make such a division, and I had proposed, as you know, merging the "convicted" of earlier but there wasn't consensus for that either. I just don't see much value in dividing in this way.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the division is not too useful, I would support the merging of the "convicted" rather than renaming the entire rapists category to just the first you listed. Would it be possible to suggest the merging again? Rapists is much more inclusive and also puts more emphasis on the act than the trial --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain that we need to retain both types of cat - not just for rapists, but for various types of criminals. There is a significant difference between convicted and unconvicted, because being convicted of rape typically results in a long prison sentence. This proposed cat change, and the one last year which was in the opposite direction, do not improve the categorisation, but make things inaccurate, unclear and not fully inclusive.
Keep as is. There is a clear difference between those known to be rapists and those convicted of rape. I suspect, however, that there are a great many articles currently in "fooian rapists" categories that belong in the subcats "fooian people convicted of rape".Hoops gza (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a significant distinction between convicted rapists and unconvicted rapists. Many of those in the rapists cats should be moved to the convicted of rape cats. Jim Michael (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think people are forgetting verifiability issues. Conviction is verifiable, rape itself a lot less so. The general report is that the vast majority of rapes go unreported. Yet it is also at times claimed many other accusations are false.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rapists whose rapes were unreported would not be stated as such on their article, hence they would not be categorised as such. People categorised as rapists who have not been convicted are people like Fred West and unidentified rapists such as the Batman rapist. Jim Michael (talk) 10:50, 23 April 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.
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: Researchers is a container category for a huge diversity of people who research all sorts of things. I don't think we need to genderize this category - it isn't comparable to something like Category:Women scientists - when "women researchers" is used, it usually refers to scientists, but this is a broader category that contains many things that are unlike, including historians, academics, researchers of the Kennedy killing, etc. In some cases, "women researchers of topic X" may be a notable, but as a top-level/mezzanine category for women this one doesn't work as it would pull together too many unlike things, and I don't see any evidence that "all forms of research" + "women doing such research" is sufficiently notable grouping in it's own right to merit a category. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an overly broad category. There are many sub-sections of this that may well have reason to be split by gender, but there is no reason to split the parent by gender.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete if at all possible. The system is already diseased to the core, but that's no reason not to begin cleaning it up somewhere. Having a category "women scientists" (meaning, female scientists) but not one for male scientists is clearly implying that a female scientist is some kind of notable miracle on its own. Much like a category "Cetacean scientists". The drive to create categories based on gender for issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with gender ("LGBT scientists"? "castrated scientists"? "virgin scientists"? hello?) may have originally started out with some ill-advised attempt to campaign for "equality". There are two flaws with this: (a) the Wikipedia category system is not a place to "campaign" for any cause, no matter how honourable, and we must actively discourage such tendencies to keep the system sane, and (b) what it does achieve is actually perpetuate "inequality" by singling out one of the two sexes, "omg look, a female scientist", while if unmarked it apparently goes without saying that somebody in a "scientist" category must be male. --dab(𒁳) 09:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
you may want to look at the blossoming of Category:Women biologists. It seems there is a drive to create a women+X for every sub field of science.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Upmerge. Category:Researchers should be diffused (only) by field of research (i.e. what the person is notable for) - not by a mixture of field of research and biographical characteristics (gender/ethnicity etc). DexDor (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per some others, though I completely disagree with dab above, & would strongly defend Category:Women biologists, "women scientists" etc. The whole "researchers" tree could do with tighter criteria. Some subcats pointlessly duplicate the academic tree, other cats seem for investigative journalists, amateur meteor spotters etc, as "independent researchers", which makes more sense. Johnbod (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My point wasn't about women biologists, but all of the tiny subcats for specialities underneath.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For example, do we need Category:Women taxonomists. We are lucky taxonomists like writing less and have less access to the NYT, otherwise we would see a repeat of novelgate with taxonomist gate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It gets worse, Category:Taxonomists has a header which reads " The purpose of this category is unclear: is it about taxonomists in the general sense of the word, or is it only about biological taxonomists?" This is so bad I couldn't make it up.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 29 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.
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 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 is trivial. It is mostly just works whose names contain the word "elevator". Category:Fiction by topic and its subcats need frequent maintenance to prevent further instances of overcategorization. This is not my last name (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and concerns over potential misuse of the kind raised in the nomination statement could be addressed by a category description that clarifies how this cat is to be used. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another trivial "in fiction" category (like "Mirrors in fiction" or "Fictional neuroscientists"). LizRead!Talk! 19:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly would agree with you about "Mirrors in fiction" but a key difference here is that elevators are being categorized as location, not a topic. And I don't see why that's not as relevant a setting as, say, the more traditional Category:Rail transport in fiction. 20:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete -- essentially trivia: all the popular culture sections of articles were deleted en masse many years ago. We should not allow them to creep in by the backdoor. If the elevator were a main subject, such as a novel or film being wholly set in a lift, it would be different. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at the category contents? That is the case, for the most part: they group works whose story lines take place notably in an elevator. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I buy the argument that the cat is about elevators/lifts as a location, not as an incidental prop, and that this cat therefore forms a valid part of Category:Locations in fiction. (A scope note would be useful to discourage inappropriate elevator-related catting, however. I also wonder whether all the cats in "Locations in fiction" could be better titled to make their purpose clearer: e.g., "Works of fiction set in elevators"). Jsmith1000 (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if the work of fiction is set in an elevator, that will generally be trivial. Espeically since we have allowed for categorization by virtually every scene.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would think 'trapped in an elevator' fiction would garner more than a handful of entries. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 05:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support any reasonable rename proposal. But my concern is that Category:Works of fiction set in elevators would create a whole new class of category, would it not? We do not have any categories begininning "Works of fiction..." do we? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:59, 21 April 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.
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:UBStalk 10:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Umais Bin Sajjad:: Your rationale for nomination is blank. What do you believe is the reason this merger must take place? LazyBastardGuy 20:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then I would say oppose because the category has two subcategories whose contents would not fit into Geo TV series. LazyBastardGuy 03:08, 27 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:Association of Professional Schools of International Affairs[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.
Nominator's rationale: That (part of) a university is (or has been) a member of this association is not generally a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a university. Many of the articles in the category (example) don't mention this association in the text. The eponymous article and the template should be upmerged to Category:University associations and consortia.
Delete -- categories for members and affiliations are hardly useful. However, is this effectively a category for university schools (faculties, departments) etc teaching (and just teaching) one subject? If so, perhaps there is the basis for a legitiamte category. However, we cannot allow the categorisation of an article on Foo university in it, because that univeristy has a school (without its own article) teaching the subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The affiliations of sub-sections of the article subject are not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 29 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.
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: I've added Category:Films shot in Antarctica and Category:Films set in Antarctica as parent categories. But given the fact that the nominated category's sole content (so far) is a documentary film, I believe it may have been created w/o realizing that the pre-existing doc cat was there. I believe that the "set in" and "shot in" categories are sufficient for Antarctic fiction films, that we should just merge this one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Shawn. I'd find it hard to think of an instance of a film being about Antarctica that isn't a documentary. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 18:46, 25 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.
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:listify then delete. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Listify and Delete. An honorable award, which would be better represented by a list, for all the usual reasons. See WP:OCAT#Award. The list could be watched and readily updated, while the category is difficult to police for additions and subtractions; the list can be sorted alphabetically, by year, by subject, or by any other relevant criteria, while the category can only be sorted alphabetically; the list can include relevant information, while the category will only display the title of the article. (I notified the creator, but that user has been blocked indefinitely for unrelated reasons.) -- Lquilter (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Listify then delete as we always do for award winner categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The receipeints are given the award because they are notable, the award is not key to their notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 29 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.
