[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 March 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 16 March 18 >

March 17

[edit]

Category:Mayors of Redlands, California

[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: merge to Category:People from Redlands, California and Category:Mayors of places in California, without prejudice to future re-creation if in the future more than one article exists about people who were mayors of the place. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Has only 1 entry. ...William 22:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's only one mayor in office at any given time, sure. Most cities and towns have had many mayors over the course of their entire histories, however. Categories of this type are not only for the current holder of the office; anyone who's ever been mayor of Redlands would belong in this category if they had an article to file in it. Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge (but per BHG, upmerge it into both parent categories, not just the People from City one.) No prejudice against future recreation if and when we have more articles about other past or future mayors of Redlands. Bearcat (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per BHG and Bearcat. The consensus is that most local politicians are NN. Those for very large cities may commonly be notable, but I would guess that the boundary will be a lot higher than 60k population. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Malaysian sex offenders

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

Category:Woman bartenders

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

Category:Alleged witches

[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: Delete DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is a bit of a mishmash, containing people who were actually put on trial and executed for witchcraft (which belong in Category:People executed for witchcraft) to people who were simply accused at one point of being witches or having powers. Normally, we don't do categories around those alleged to have committed crimes, but this is a strange case because we know (at least, I believe) that witchcraft doesn't exist, so we could never establish that someone actually was a witch!
This category brings together too many unlike things, as it seems to contain many people who at one time were regarded as having some sort of supernatural power, but I'm not sure that's a good basis for categorization (in the same way we wouldn't categorize people who were known to be beautiful or charming or friendly or really mean). It's essentially subjective and violates WP:OCAT for that alone, whereas if someone actually was convicted or killed or punished for allegedly doing witchcraft then at least we have something objective we can hang a category on. But "Alleged witches"? Not convinced it works. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As long as there is documented evidence that an individual was suspected of being a witch then I see no problem with categorising the fact, given how much importance was placed on allegations of witchcraft in earlier centuries. However, I think it should be restricted to individuals "genuinely" suspected of witchcraft (by the standards of their time), and that people only vaguely rumoured to be witches or clearly only accused for political reasons should not be included. Considering a number of people in the category are only notable for having been accused or suspected of witchcraft (a perfect example being Jeanette Abadie, the person for whom I originally created the category back in 2005), I really think it makes no sense not to categorise the fact. It may be POV by our standards; it wasn't by theirs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't have categories for people "genuinely" suspected of being thieves, or rapists, or murderers, so why categorize witches? I think if it was more something like Category:People put on trial for being witches or some other evidence that they underwent some sort of judicial process, vs just people spreading rumors. Many people have been rumored to have magical powers over history, but I think it's a poor way to categorize. If kept, can you propose inclusion criteria? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you said yourself, witchcraft is an entirely different kettle of fish. This is not a crime as we would consider it today (not in Western countries, at least). It can't be proved. It doesn't exist. It is an historical curiosity. And I'm sure I said above that I don't think rumour should be enough for inclusion. Category:People put on trial for being witches may be a solution, but how then would you categorise people like Ruth Osborne (alleged witch)? She was never put on trial, but being an alleged witch is the only thing she's known for. And there are a number of people like her in the category. I'm fine with an alternative title for the category if one can be found, but I think it needs to exist. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely too broad a category. Category: People executed for witchcraft‎ exists and Ruth Osborne (alleged witch) was given a "trial" and defacto executed for it. People put on trial and found innocent is another possible category. But given that people still are accused of it and harmed today in some parts of world, let's not tempt people to put anyone in such a broad categorty. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, Ruth Osborne was murdered for it; no judicial proceedings were involved. It's hardly appropriate to put her into Category:People executed for witchcraft‎. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
she was executed, or I guess lynched - it was a sort of trial-by-mob. What is notable about her is not that she was accused, it that she was lynched and killed by a mob. Do we have lots of these?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, so now we're going to categorise murders by mobs as executions are we? How NPOV of us! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's the issue with witch trials - most were show trials, put on by local authorities or even just church elders. The line between judicial process and mob violence was pretty blurry. Admittedly, in the case of Ruth the perpetrators were put on trial and executed as a result. Such killings like Ruth's are sometimes called "extrajudicial executions", so we could simply broaden the scope, unless we thought it was important to differentiate those people killed after a trial by an authority vs a trial by a bunch of crazed villagers. The result for the condemned was more or less the same.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think it's helpful to characterise mob violence and lynching as "execution", which gives it some legitimacy. We may not agree with witchcraft trials by the authorities, which often included the church in those times, but they were still the authorities and therefore their actions were legal. This sort of killing wasn't legal even then. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In spite of your discomfort, reliable sources do refer to these as "extrajudicial executions" - e.g. [1]. We could alternately rename that category to Category:People executed or killed for witchcraft - the point being, no-one to our knowledge has ever been actually guilty of witchcraft, so separating "legal" killing and mob violence killings isn't useful in this case.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that reliable sources often refer to murders of gangsters by other gangsters as "executions" too. That doesn't mean they are or that they should be categorised as such. The only true executions are those carried out by the appropriate legal authorities after due process. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the english language begs to disagree with you. It's not under our control, and we unfortunately can't say to the world "You're not allowed to use execution for these cases".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I meant we shouldn't in an encyclopaedia! -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think a category of those who were actually put on trial, and who somehow survived, could work, as this has an objective criteria. I'm not that uncomfortable blending extrajudicial executions with judicial ones, especially since the standards of justice were rather lax.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am, as stated above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Female lynching victims

[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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category violates the final rung rule of WP:EGRS, and it has not been demonstrated that women have a special relationship to lynching. If you look at the current contents, it includes people who were lynched mainly because they were African American, because they opposed powerful interests, or because they were accused of being witches. There is already a category for people killed for witchcraft that is gender neutral (Category:People_executed_for_witchcraft), but this broader category doesn't work and tends to ghettoize the women because it's last rung. Merge up, and selectively merge to the witchcraft category if those people aren't already in it if it can be properly termed an execution (or, we could broaden the scope, and allow people lynched for witchcraft into the "executed" category). Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just don't buy this last rung argument which gets used to eliminate any category involving women. This category could easily be further subdivided, based on ethnicity, location ("Female lynching victims in Alabama", "...in Africa", "...in Oklahoma"), religion, age or occupation.
And I'd really like to know the criteria of what merits consideration of a "special relationship" for women. I'm sure if you read the articles of some of the victims, it is likely that their murders were in part due to their identity as women. Seriously, aside from pregnancy and motherhood, how does one demonstrate that conditions for women merit the "special" designation? Because I think this line is incredibly fuzzy and depends on the personal views of the nominator, not any objective criteria. If I'm wrong, please point me to where this special relationship is defined and explained on the policy pages. And, by the way, eliminating gender-based categories doesn't change the fact that women and men are treated differently in society, it doesn't erase sexism. It just erases women's presence and experience on Wikipedia and says that they are just like men (only less so). Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 20:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, you've made this argument several times. I've pointed out that there are over 6000 categories under women-by-occupation so there's absolutely no risk that gendered cats will disappear in general, and probably countless others on women + X. However, you seem to be arguing that for any given topic, we should create and maintain a gendered category of women + X. Past consensus is frankly against you on this, so you need to think about why. For example we could create today a category called "Women and knitting" that has examples of women knitters and women who contributed to the field of knitting but it would ultimately be a bad category as there's no evidence that women perform the job of knitting differently than men; in fact a better cat might be men and knitting since perhaps men are the more rare case in knitting. Women and men have been lynched over the years for a wide variety of reasons - because of their race, because of their supposed witchcraft, because they were gay, and maybe even in some cases because of their gender, etc but I have not seen any evidence nor was able to find any that suggested lynching of women (across instances of lynching, across the centuries and around the world) was sufficiently studied as a topic in its own right to merit a category of women who were lynched. You say you don't like last rung rule but it exists for a very good reason, which is that in the absence of diffusing siblings these cats are much more likely to ghettoize and every time I find one I also find the contents are ghettoized. The contents today don't support a by-state division and it would likely be unwarranted, but last rung is only one reason to kill this cat, the main reason is no sources. Finally stating that deleting a women's category erases the contributions of women is frankly bullshit - during category gate a great many outside commenters felt that the very presence of women-only cats was offensive and their presence made it seem like women were a special type of human instead of 50% of the human race - so there are feminists and writers who believe the exact opposite to you. I take a middle ground - I think if there is an established literature on phenomenon X + women and we can build the category in a way that doesn't violate last rung rule it should remain, and we should also check to see if there is sufficient lit for a men +X cat at the same time! - but saying that deleting a cat erases women is pure rhetoric - one could argue that the absence of a male cat thus erases men by the same token, it's simply NOT true. The way to highlight women's contributions is to write articles about them, not create a women-only category for everything under the sun. In cases where literature doesn't support it, the women-only-likely-to-ghettoize cats make things worse, not better, by suggesting that in spite of evidence to the contrary Wikipedia thinks women are a special kind of victim of lynching. They aren't.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Last rung is not an issue of "could the category be further sub-divided" but "is it further subdivided". People should create other possible sub-divisions first. This category just does not work at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 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.

Category:Women in the food industry

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

Category:People in the food industry

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

Category:Spiders by European country

[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: merge Sardinia, Sicily, and Crete; no consensus on Canary Islands and Russia. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: This is a followup to the group nomination of 27 similar categories at CFD 2014 March 2, which I closed as "merge all". The categories listed above were omitted from that nomination, so this is a tidyup to finish that job. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Original nominator's rationale: If we categorized every genus/species of spider by every European country it has ever been found in we would have a lot of categories on a lot of articles. In practice, many of the articles about spiders don't have a comprehensive list of which countries the species has been found in (e.g. just saying "present in most of Europe") so any attempt at country-level categorization based on the article content is likely to be very haphazard (e.g. Category:Spiders of Metropolitan France currently only contains 10 articles). In a case like this it's better to have reasonably complete continent-level categorization than to have very incomplete country-level categorization (there are about 50 countries in Europe).
For info: The creator of these categories has been asked several times to avoid overcategorization (e.g. [2]), but is still creating categories at a prodigious rate (e.g. [3]) and created 3 more "Spiders of <country>" categories shortly after this CFD nomination (I've added them to the nomination).
For info: a CFD in 2007 resulted in a merge of European fauna by-country categories into a by-continent category, but the by-country categories were then re-created by a vandal/sockpuppet making edits like [4]; perhaps it's time to clear it out again (and salt?). DexDor (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC) Updated DexDor (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all (except possibly Canary islands) -- per precedent. There might be a case for island categories where there is unique fauna (or flora), but the Mediterranean islands only became islands when the sea broke through the straits of Gibraltar, perhaps 100,000 years ago, a short period in evolutionary history. I am not clear when the Canaries (also Azores and Madeira) became islands, but it might be long enough ago for them to have acquired some unique fauna. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also not Russia, as only partly European, as well as being enormous in area. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment user:NotWith, the creator of these categories is doing what many of the participants here should be doing - building an encyclopedia. Just my $.02. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense. The creator of these categories may very well be attempted to build an encyclopedia, but it's not constructive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • hold off Need more research; for islands, it's certainly possible there are native spiders not found elsewhere, so that could be a case for keeping the islands. For Russia, much of Russia is in Asia, so we have to figure out what we're doing with spiders in Asia before dealing with that one.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the Sardinia/Sicily/Crete categories per nom. It's possible that there are spiders that are only found on a particular island (or, for that matter, only in one nature reserve etc), but some spiders may be found on hundreds of European islands so it's not a good way to categorize spiders. Note: Many/most of the articles in these categories may already be in a category such as Category:Trapdoor spiders of Europe so (rather than merging) it may be slightly better to depopulate these categories manually or to check and then delete the categories without merging. DexDor (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Canary/Russia categories (for the moment). Neither the Canary Islands nor Russia is (geographically rather than politically) wholly within Europe. DexDor (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge We should avoid virtually all sub-continental categorization of animals. We need to bear in mind that the categories have to be defining to the animals, and political units are not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 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.

Category:Electropop ballads

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

Category:Crimes against women

[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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The contents are all about rape or violence, this category doesn't serve much purpose and duplicates a number of other cats. Most of the rape articles are well categorized elsewhere, so just ensure some of the other ones are in violence against women and subcats. It's possible a delete is sufficient here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC) Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - 'Crimes against women' and 'Violence against women' have different meanings and many articles are suitable for one and not the other. The category 'Crimes against women' is more concerned with crimes in different countries or specific crimes, whilst the 'Violence against women' is more specific in violence. It's not as expansive as 'Violence against women' but sometimes its good for categories to be more specific. Crimes could also encompass non-violent crimes, although it doesn't currently. I'd recommend improving the category 'Crimes against women' --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
can you give examples of articles we have on crimes against women that arent violent? I don't see any articles on same. All of the current contents are about violence.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm inclined to lean towards oppose, not because of what it is but because of what it could be. The old argument would go something along the lines of, "all violence against women is a crime but not all crimes against women are acts of violence". What about female victims of identity fraud? Women subject to non-violent theft? Insurance scams against companies with female CEOs? The issue seems to be that rather than listing specific crimes committed against specific women, it lists crime (generally) against women like "domestic violence in x" articles - broad examples of crime against women. If that's what it is going to be used for then it really should be renamed Category:Crime against women and I'd be all for merging it. I don't strongly object to a merger on the basis of current use but there should be some acknowledgement of that. Stalwart111 10:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question is do we have sufficient articles about non-violent crimes committed against women because they are women? Even Purse snatching can be violent. Of course women are victims of non-violent crimes but when people speak in the literature about crimes against women they are almost exclusively speaking of some form of violence, whether actual or threatened (eg in the case of forced prostitution). If this category stays we should create Category:Crimes against men for such cases of non-violent crime targeted at men. Ultimately I think neither is needed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's exactly right. It'd be nice if we did but we don't and the suggestion is sensible on that basis. Stalwart111 13:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- I would be happier to see us creating "domestic violence by country" and "rape by country" trees as sub-cats of the crimes cat. Also, the specific rape cases should be in a (general) rape (or rape cases) category. I also agree that not all crimes against women involve violence. In the terminology of my country, not all thefts are robberies. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are already trees as such, but under the Category:Violence against women category. While I agree not all thefts are robberies, can you find sufficient articles about thefts targeting women, or sources that talk about non-violent crimes committed targeting women? Looking at the current contents, all could be moved to the violence category as is.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've removed a whole load of articles from being directly in this category as they are in a subcategory such as Category:Violence against women in India. DexDor (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yuck! I was going to say keep since rape and domestic abuse are crimes, at least in some cases. Then consider the fact that both of those have male victims and we have a mess there. While some entries there may only be possible if the victim is female, I was going cite Honor killing but alas that can also happen to a male (homosexuality), we might be able to keep something. So, I guess the real question is how to categorize. Going back to rape, Rape in India is included, but then marital rape is allowed there as I read the article, so it is not always a crime, violence maybe, but not a crime. So some type of cleanup is needed. Then we have to remove some of these from a woman only tree since the crimes are gender neutral, albeit more likely to be male on female. Then you also need to consider statutory rape. Somewhat common in schools with females being charged on a regular basis. Keeping or renaming with a single gender does not seem the right direction. On the other hand I'm not sure there is a good choice here other then delete as long as everything is in a good parent category. Then I'm not sure that woman is correct here, probably should be female. As I said, Yuck! Vegaswikian (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Purse snatching, robbery, interpersonal fraud - online, via telephone, by caretakers of elderly/infirmed women and by romancing males, males exposing themselves publicly (and even posing as transgenders to do it in women-segregated facilities) are just a few examples of non-violent crimes that target women especially. So the larger category needs to remain to accomodate hopefully future articles about them, if we even find women who will stay long enough to write them. Sigh... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Carol, we can't keep a category for articles that may arrive someday. What articles are you proposing to add here, exactly? Robbery? Purse snatching? Neither of these are crimes that target women exclusively, and in any case both are considered to be violent crimes, so wouldn't belong in any case. A male exposing himself publicly is pretty weak justification for such a category, and there are of course plenty of examples of women doing the same thing - Indecent exposure is in Category:Sex crimes which seems perfectly reasonable. As for interpersonal fraud, there are a whole lot of men who send money to "Russian" brides who would love to hear about how interpersonal fraud is targeted at women especially - there is a whole industry of people trying to defraud men online. Ultimately this isn't a helpful gendered distinction, the Category:Violence against women is much better and captures the heart of the issue.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_17&oldid=1082510099"