Category:National sportsperson of the year by country[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: The category's articles are inherently divided by country so the additional text adds no benefit. SFB 22:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Black Falcon or something along those lines. This is a category of articles on awards (which is legitimate), not the usual kind of awards category (which we listify). Peterkingiron (talk) 19:11, 25 November 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. – FayenaticLondon 13:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category was created prematurely - first wait until we have at least 5 stubs for this category, and then create it. There is only one stub in this category and a category for Category:Welsh Rapists(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) already exists --Jjjimg (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not following the deletion rationale. Is it being suggested that there is a minimum requirement of five articles for a category? Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, they should both be upmerged or neither. Just tagged the parent cat to link to this conversation (and the original nomination). RevelationDirect (talk) 11:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't write what I think you might have thought I written. I said (expressed a little clearer here) that if the contents of the nominated category are upmerged to Category:British people convicted of rape, the contents would also need to be upmerged to Category:Welsh rapists. I didn't suggest that Category:Welsh rapists should also be deleted/upmerged if the nominated category is. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well the point Iimagined you were making was totally brilliant! RevelationDirect (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is the parent category, Category:Welsh rapists as much of a BLP nightmare that I think it is? It implies we can group people who are not convicted.RevelationDirect (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: I think the logic is based upon that of Category:Burglars, where someone is an admitted or proven rapist but has not been convicted of rape. I agree that it is problematic, not least because known rape without conviction is far more common than burglary, particularly historically – this category could apply to Thomas Jefferson, who fathered children with his slave. This isn't a reading I disagree with though. SFB 19:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Seems adequately populated to me. I disagree that five articles should be required, if that's what is being suggested (but still not clear on that). Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not following the nominator's rationale at all. Would appreciate some clarification, as others have voiced. - Hoops gza (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this. However "Welsh rapists" is a BLP nightmare and must be culled. Rapists who murdered their victim will not strictly have been convicted of rape, but of murder. HOwever the fact that they are rapists will have been apparent at their trial, so that I see not objection to including them in this category, with a suitable headnote explaining this. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:17, 25 November 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: Category was created prematurely - first wait until we have at least 60 stubs for this category, and then create it. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 11:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By the time the admins get round to clearing the WP:CFD backlog it will be 2016 and there will be hundreds of articles in the category... LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 19:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some do get closed on time, and I'm willing to promise that if I see that it has 50 stubs or more at any time before this discussion is closed, I'll be willing to withdraw the nomination. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 13:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Backlog aside, it will be a while before there is any real content with which to populate this category, and 60 is the minimum threshold set by WP:STUB#Guidelines. -- Black Falcon(talk) 05:55, 15 November 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. Needless eponymous category for one distinct article. No aid in navigation. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 09:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The main article and a filmography do not constitute reason enough to create a category. SFB 19:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and SFB. I could not locate additional content with which to expand this small category. -- Black Falcon(talk) 05:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poer above.--Lenticel(talk) 08:45, 17 November 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:UpmergeCategory:fooian male serial killers to Category:fooian serial killers and Category:Male serial killers or Category:fooian male murderers to Category:Scottish murderers and Category:fooian male murderers. There were a lot of points made in 2+ months. In the end, there is no consensus to support the triple intersections like serial killers by race and by ethnicity. Having said that, there also does not appear to be support for retaining Category:Male serial killers and Category:Male murderers either. However that decision needs a separate discussion to give this a focused review. I don't think that there was sufficient focus on the request to merge Category:Male murderers to Category:Murderers to make a decision here, so this would merit its own discussion along with the companion Category:Female murderers. I'll note on the last one, that Category:Murderers is a container category that is not suppose to have articles which may be an issue in a later discussion. Anything emptied as a result of implementing this should be deleted. Feel free to open the follow on discussions if there is a need. Since the female categories were not nominated, they can not be changed by this nomination and the discussion. I think that covers it all. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Recent creations. I believe that this is overcategorization; categorization by nationality is sufficient. The creation of these categories may have been inspired by Category:Female murderers. Some time ago, there was a proposal to eliminate the categories for female murderers, but it didn't proceed past a test nomination. Perhaps those could be considered again, though this nomination is not including them.
Here, we can consider some of the things we discuss when occupation categories are divided by gender. The vast majority of murderers and serial killers are male. I have also seen books and media specifically about female murderers and serial killers as females, but not about male ones as males. Male murderers or male serial killers is not really a "distinct cultural topic", whereas female ones might be. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have seen books and media about male murderers being male, links to the Y-chromosome or lack of a second X-chromosome, male evolutionary biology, etc. So it is a topic of research. There's even been murder defenses based on male genetics (ie. double-Y trisomy) no opinion on the merger proposal, but if we're looking at it from the basis of biological research, there is that on both sides of the gender divide. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. Perhaps it does come down to the issue of whether we want to divide it by gender at all. If we do, then we would have both. If not, then neither. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Creator of categories rationale:Keep. Just to give some context to this - I'm part of the Gender Gap Task Force, which has recently been revamped and I was looking to see if there were any autoassment bots that might prove useful. There is a bot available that can be set up (after consensus within a particular project) which will automatically tag articles in particular categories according to their importance.
As I was flicking through categories within WP:WikiProject Gender Studies I found Category:American female serial killers but no corresponding Category:American male serial killers. I then began dividing up the different nationalities serial killers into male and female. I have no objection to all these categories being merged but the corresponding female categories should also be merged back, including the pre-existing one for American female serial killers.
Women are not a "distinct cultural topic", and this has nothing to do with whether women are more likely to be killers then men. This is about resisting the urge to cast women in the role of "other", whether that is in writing, science or anything else. It perpetuates the idea of: men = the norm, whilst women = something else. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I am not sure that is true in this context. Men are the creepy scary other with axes dripping blood, that we grow up fearing, the "strange man" and the "bad man" were the bogeymen of the second half of the 20th century. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 04:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC).
↑ this makes sense to me: either sort male and female or lump them all together. It seems daft to do a bit of both. pablo 12:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@The Vintage Feminist and Pablo X: What do you make of my double merge suggestion below? Effectively, I'm saying we should have a "[gender] serial killers" category and a "[nationality] serial killers" category, but not a national+gender type as the nationality doesn't have relevance to the murderousness of a gender. SFB 02:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with The Vintage Feminist and Pablo X. We should either separate both male and female or lump them all together. —Granger (talk·contribs) 13:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think they should be merged into one category with no male or female categories. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think readers would find the category female serial killers interesting and useful, in part because they are perceived as very rare, and I agree with Vintage Feminist that if we have a category for female serial killers, it only makes sense to have one for males as well. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and the female serial killer categories are also merged. Grognard Chess(talk) Ping when replying 19:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vintage Feminist and BoboMeowCat. Female serial killers is a useful categorization, and if we have one of those, we need one for Male serial killers. --GRuban (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge categorization by sex not supported by a real need. The existence or not of female counterparts is not a valid argument WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and if female serial killers are the rarity or they serially kill differently, a non-diffusing subcat for them can be created, but that assertion is far from proven. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Well, almost. Actually it doesn't matter whether the assertion is proven, merely that it is notable enough to be seriously studied, right? We don't take stands, right? We document all sides. So let's see if the question is studied.
Looks like it is a real topic of interest. So we should categorize. --GRuban (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When categorizing by sex, sexual orientation, race, and ethnicity, we need a real hook unless because crime and African Americans is discussed all over, (the phenomenon is sufficiently notable we even have WP articles on it Criminal stereotype of African Americans and Race and crime in the United States) so I trust that you'd support breaking out categories for African American convicts? If not, your point is not well taken due to inherent bias; if so, just count me out on all your breakdowns. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a really good point. There are all sorts of variables that are studied and written about when it comes to murderers and serial killers. That doesn't mean we want a matching category tree with all these variables. It's essentially the issue of what is notable vs. what is defining. I'd argue that being a male serial killer is no more defining for a person than being a serial killer. Being a female serial killer, on the other hand, might be. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the issue of categorization comes down to one of studies then men who kill (i.e. they kill "differently"), then this too is the subject of studies:
Like I said, I have no objection to merging the categories but I created the male categories because there were some female serial killers in a category of that name and just one random female category by nationality (American). Also, the fact that Wikipedia has an article on the book Female Serial Killers falls under WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS just as much as the notion that you can't have male serial killers / murderers categories just because female serial killers / murderers categories exist. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One problem with keeping is—who is going to go through the (literally) thousands of articles about murderers and re-categorize them as male or female? Right now the male murderer categories are only serving as containers for the male serial killers categories. Re-categorizing serial killers by gender is easy—not so with the murderers. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No WP bot can do that kind of work. A person would have to access the article and determine if they are indeed male, since not all of the female murderers are placed in exclusively "female murderer" categories. It would be a mammoth job, and one that I would bet would never be done. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Users always assumed they're male if they aren't in the female category. I guess it would be politically correct though. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all - The relationship between gender and murder is a topic of academic and popular interest, and that interest appears to be strongest in relation to women. Therefore, at a minimum, these categories go against the established standard that dedicated subject-group categories (such as Category:Female murderers) do not need to be balanced by similar categories for all other groups (see WP:CAT/GRS#Gender). More generally, however, biographical categorization is an extremely poor method of trying to capture a broad "topic of interest"; although I do not doubt that Gender and murder is a real topic of interest, that interest does not extend to nor is relevant for every murderer who has a gender. I am confident that these categories were created with the noblest intentions ("resisting the urge to cast women in the role of 'other'"), but categorization is not intended to be a tool for introducing balance to an unbalanced situation. -- Black Falcon(talk) 05:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The relationship between gender and murder is a topic of academic and popular interest, and that interest appears to be strongest in relation to women." I've added examples of academic and popular interest where the relationship is in relation to men to the end of the thread above (OP is from Carlossuarez46). --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those examples support my point that the relationship between gender and murder is a real topic of interest, but that interest does not extend to and is not relevant for every murderer who has a gender. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I do not doubt that Gender and murder is a real topic of interest, that interest does not extend to nor is relevant for every murderer who has a gender." - which includes every murderer who also happens to be female, yet there is a category for female serial killers. I not sure how you think your point has been supported by a list of examples of academic and popular interest where the relationship [between gender and murder] is in relation to men rather than women (if the point you refer to is: interest appears to be strongest in relation to women. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't decide on this one, but I am inclined to say merge. There is an interest in female serial killers, because they appear to be so unusual, however splitting out by male/female really messes with the categories. Lists might well be the way to go. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 04:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC).
I'm leaning towards a merge on this. Support Carlossuarez and Good olfactory's stance. BTW there appear to be some articles currently categorized by gender for which the perpetrator's gender has never been verified, another potential reason for merging. - Hoops gza (talk) 04:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Double merge content to "male serial killers" and "male murderers" as well as the non-gendered national categories. The nationality has very little relevance in someone's being a male killer. The male element of Hungarian male criminals is no different from the male element of Polish male criminals. Hence, we see the national categories having relevance, and the gendered categories having relevance, but not the combination of the two. I still believe the "gender+specific crime" tree is very useful in itself as the topics have direct relevance (at least as much as the nationality, anyway). SFB 20:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or "double merge" per The Vintage Feminist. Merging the categories of only one gender set is unacceptable. --BDD (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2015 (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 as over-categorization by shared name. However, here is a link to the diffs, in case a valid category for C20 can be rescued. – FayenaticLondon 13:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This 20th-century-centric category groups unrelated subjects with shared names ("... of the Century"), including subjects as diverse as storms, sporting events or matches, theoretical sports teams, trials, books, and people. The designations do not necessarily reflect quality (unless there's a "best in storming" category of which I am unaware), typically are not actually awards, and in some cases reflect merely one publisher's opinion (e.g., Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century). A more accurate title would be Category:Superlative "of the (20th) Century" designations. -- Black Falcon(talk) 01:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that the examples are comparable. Category:National sportsperson of the year by country has a relatively narrow topical scope (sports), whereas this category has no topical scope. Category:Annual sporting events also has a relatively narrow topical scope and is defined by its periodicity, whereas this category contains only a small handful (I count seven) of single-instance awards issued for unrelated topics (cars and association football) once we exclude non-award material. -- Black Falcon(talk) 05:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The inclusion criteria of Awards and designations "of the century" is totally ambiguous and is categorizing by shared name. What should be included here, we have at least one case of a list covering 1908 until 2007. What century is that in? Or take the Fight of the Century. Which century are we discussing, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st? I suppose with a lot of work, a valid category might exist. But with the current focus to include everything that has something with "of the century" attached we are barking up the wrong tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Vegaswikian: I disagree that this is an example of the shared name phenomenon as the purpose is to specifically address awards for the best of a century. I consider shared name categories are be like grouping Apple, Apple Inc. and Apple Corps under Category:Apple topics. The rest of your argument largely stands though. SFB 23:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If this refers to 20th century, it could be a legitimate category. However, I am sceptical as to anyone's ability to be able to compare which is the better of what happened in 1905 and 1995. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: That's more of a comment on the practice than on our ability to group such like material. SFB 23:25, 25 November 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.
