Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 15

< July 14 July 16 >

July 15

Parks and gardens categories

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: procedural keep. Some of these are keeps, some of these are no consensus. None have consensus to rename. More broadly, the bludgeoning effect of so many individual discussions at once makes it impossible to know what the outcomes would have been had participants been able to easily comment on all at once; the fact that the first discussion has many additional participants than any of the others is telling. Relisting any of these would be inappropriate, as it would overwhelm the CSD process. No prejudice against a speedy renomination as a joint nomination (preferably split between those that only have parks and all others), although I somewhat doubt those nominations would succeed. ~ Rob13Talk 14:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and gardens in Moscow
Nominator's rationale: In line with similar categories Rathfelder (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all these. I agree with the nom that the grouping of articles is not ideal but there is also Category:Gardens. Not all gardens are parks and vice versa. Oculi (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all except UK categories with "commons", commons aren't parks as explained below, this is almost like a WP:ENGVAR exception. On the other hand, articles in non-English speaking countries that have the title "garden" in their name are actually about parks, e.g. Englischer Garten in Munich and Summer Garden in St Petersburg. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very few of these categories contain any articles that are not about parks. There is no real reason to put parks and gardens together.Rathfelder (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some places in England which are called Gardens are really parks. Trying to define the differences between parks, open spaces, woodlands, and gardens seems an unrealistic enterprise.Rathfelder (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- It is much better to allow the category name to be determined by local usage. "Public open space in foo" might be a way of providing a NPOV parent for them all. As others have said, precise splitting of these is fraught with problems as to where to draw boundaries, so that a NPOV solution is desirable, as we did when we merged cities/town/villages into populated places. I have commented in the UK cases separately (and at length). Peterkingiron (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was told I should nominate them individually. I'm afraid I don't know how to tackle a collective discussion.Rathfelder (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's apparently a misunderstanding. You should start with one individually and then add the others manually in the same section. There isn't any tool for that, it's just 50 times copy, paste, edit. See this discussion as a proper example. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Oppose The separate nominations are not reasonable to provide feedback on. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since User:Peterkingiron did provide meaningful feedback on the various parks categories in the UK, it hasn't been entirely insensible to nominate the categories separately. With the discussion as it stands now, it may make sense to close the discussions as a keep insofar Peterkingiron clearly opposed, and a procedural close for all other parks discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and plazas in Mayagüez, Puerto Rico
Nominator's rationale: In line with similar categories Rathfelder (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and open spaces in Saint Petersburg
Nominator's rationale: in line with similar categories Rathfelder (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and open spaces in Copenhagen by municipality
Nominator's rationale: in line with similar categories Rathfelder (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and open spaces in Munich
Nominator's rationale: In line with similar categories Rathfelder (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and open spaces in Copenhagen
Nominator's rationale: In line with similar categories Rathfelder (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and gardens in Tottori Prefecture
Nominator's rationale: In line with similar categories Rathfelder (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and gardens in Osaka Prefecture
Nominator's rationale: In line with similar categories Rathfelder (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and gardens in Osaka
Nominator's rationale: In line with similar categories Rathfelder (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and gardens in Beijing
Nominator's rationale: in line with similar categories Rathfelder (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and gardens in Akita Prefecture
Nominator's rationale: in line with similar categories Rathfelder (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and commons in York
Nominator's rationale: Rathfelder (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: A park has two specific meanings in the UK- an area of land that has been enclosed and remains for the enjoyment of one rich family, and a second meaning of a a patch of cultivated land maintained by a municipality often with ornamental gardens and recretional equipment. A common as now defined by the Commons Act 2006, is an area of communal land for the use of the commoners (the poor) with agricultural rights. Often it may be watermeadows or the tops of mountains. Then it gets very blurred, some commons in London are vestiges of their former selves, are urban parks but retain the name and the status.

Strays of York are not parks in any sense. Parks and commons is the correct collective term for this form of open land. Each authority is different- some will have no commons, but for wiki-consistency Category:Parks and commons in XXXX must be used. --ClemRutter (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

York is unusual among cities in having commons. But there is no real imperative to put the two in the same category.Rathfelder (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this and all the other English cases. A park is by definition enclosed, originally to keep deer or other animals in them for the benefit of a gentleman owner. A municipal park is an area created by someone for the public to enjoy. A common is by definition unenclosed. Most commons are commons of pasture, where neighbouring farmers have rights of grazing, now commonly not exercised. ClemRutter is wrong in identifying them with the poor who commonly had no rights; cottagers near the common might have rights and suffered from hearing a disproportionate cost in fencing their small allotment on inclosure. Most are access land, where the public may wander. Some of the mountain moorland is common of pasture and is used as such. The metropolitan commons are in practice such the same as parks, though some are much larger than a normal "park". Common meadows (such as Lammas lands) are normally not accessible to the public: a crop of hay is taken and then the land is used for grazing by the commoners. Public open space is a third category, normally land dedicated to the public as an incident of the planning process; it has many of the characteristics of a municipal park, but is not enclosed. It might be feasible to combine many of these into "Public Open Space in foo", providing a headnote listing the various kinds of open space covered, in this case Category:Public Open Space in York. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment -- The above was written before I considered all the cases. I started by opposing them all, but have now considered all or most piecemeal. Sometimes "parks" is the right answer; sometimes not. Accordingly, my responses are mixed. I would recommend Category:Public Open Space in foo for parent categories for counties, etc. In some cases, it may be appropriate to purge categories of nature reserves, cemeteries etc, so that they can be renamed to parks. However, functioning non-urban commons should probably be in a separate "common land" tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Peterkingiron's approach is sensible. Almost everywhere has parks, and parks in the UK seem very like parks in other countries. There is no compelling reason to put all the other sorts of public space into the same categories.Rathfelder (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You will find that I have responded to all the subsequent UK cases. Sometimes, I have followed my suggestion; sometimes not. My second comment was written after commenting on the rest. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and commons in Wirral (borough)
  • Propose renaming Category:Parks and commons in Wirral (borough) to Category:Parks in Wirral (borough)
Nominator's rationale: Rathfelder (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons as in York case above. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and commons in Warrington
Nominator's rationale: Rathfelder (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons as in York case above. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and commons in Wakefield
Nominator's rationale: Rathfelder (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons as in York case above. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- the one item is a park. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and commons in Trafford
Nominator's rationale: Rathfelder (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and open spaces in England by county
Nominator's rationale: In line with similar categories in other countries Rathfelder (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As explained above. The meaning is different- mainland Europe- is used solely to categorise pleasure gardens, while in the UK this category is used to categorise former common land, water meadows, flood plains and the detritus of 950 years of history. It would be nice if we could make the changes, but we can't.--ClemRutter (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons as in York case above. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and open spaces in Greater Manchester
Nominator's rationale: Rathfelder (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons as in York case above. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and commons in Stockport Borough
Nominator's rationale: Rathfelder (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons as in York case above. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- They are all parks. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and open spaces in Merseyside
Nominator's rationale: Rathfelder (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons as in York case above. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and commons in St Helens, Merseyside
Nominator's rationale: Rathfelder (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons as in York case above. I am far from sure whether Sutton Mill Dam is a park. Public Category:Open space in St Helens, Merseyside might be acceptable. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and commons in Sefton
Nominator's rationale: Rathfelder (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose for reasons as in York case above. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

  • Support -- all parks or country parks. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and commons in Salford
Nominator's rationale: Rathfelder (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons as in York case above. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and commons in Rochdale Borough
Nominator's rationale: Rathfelder (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons as in York case above. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and commons in Preston
Nominator's rationale: Rathfelder (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons as in York case above. Brockholes is a nature reserve, not a park or a common; possibly "public open space". Peterkingiron (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and commons in Oldham Borough
  • Propose renaming Category:Parks and commons in Oldham Borough to Category:Parks in Oldham Borough
Nominator's rationale: Rathfelder (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose for reasons as in York case above. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

  • Support -- all parks or country parks. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and commons in Manchester
Nominator's rationale: Rathfelder (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons as in York case above. Category:Public open space in Manchester would probably be ok. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and commons in Liverpool
Nominator's rationale: Rathfelder (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons as in York case above. Category:Public open space in Liverpool would be ok. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and commons in Leeds
Nominator's rationale: Rathfelder (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons as in York case above. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and commons in Lancaster, Lancashire
Nominator's rationale: Rathfelder (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons as in York case above. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support -- The one item is a park. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and commons in Knowsley
Nominator's rationale: Rathfelder (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- in this case they are all parks. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and commons in Glasgow
Nominator's rationale: Rathfelder (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- They are all parks. I am not sure that "common" is a Scottish concept. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and commons in Edinburgh
Nominator's rationale: Rathfelder (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons as in York case above. Suggest Category:Public open space in Edinburgh. The links are probably not parks. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and commons in Devon
Nominator's rationale: Rathfelder (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - apart from the typo "Derby" for "Devon", the articles presently in the category are both about commons, not parks - and there is a difference. Eustachiusz (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed User:Clemrutter making above the same point better about the whole of England, but will let my comment here stand.Eustachiusz (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we have a category for "Commons in Devon"? Rathfelder (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname to Category:Commons in Devon, but parent in an open space tree. Neither item is a park. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Renaming to Category:Commons in Devon may be sensible (although no "Commons" tree exists as yet) as, at least in England, there is a clear definition of a common to work with (although they can later be emparked, engardened and so on), but the parent category is Category:Parks and open spaces in Devon, to which the nom presumably would still object, so is this just moving the perceived problem up one level? From the discussions above it looks as though there is no fixed difference between a park and a open space (leaving aside gardens, which muddy the waters further) on which unambiguous categories could be based, so the formula "Parks and open spaces" is apparently the best solution.Eustachiusz (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and commons in Derby
Nominator's rationale: Rathfelder (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons given under York above. IN this case, I doubt whether the racecourse is either a park or a common. I am not clear why there are do many redirects in this category. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and commons in Chorley
Nominator's rationale: Rathfelder (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons given under York (above). Category:Public open space in Chorley might be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and commons in Bury Borough
Nominator's rationale: Rathfelder (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- They are all parks. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and commons in Burnley
Nominator's rationale: Rathfelder (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- A recreation ground is a kind of park. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and commons in Bradford
Nominator's rationale: Rathfelder (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question -- is Judy Woods a park? It sounds like private property. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and commons in Blackpool
Nominator's rationale: Rathfelder (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- A nature reserve is not a park. Category:Public Open Space in Blackpool might be acceptable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parks and commons in Blackburn
Nominator's rationale: In line with similar categories Rathfelder (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A cemetery is not usually a park, though it might be public open space. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the grounds that these dozens of individual nominations could be easily condensed into two or three discussions. Not doing so is disrespectful to us fellow participants. I therefore refuse to even contemplate, let alone deliberate the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2016 (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:Clothing industry and Category:Garment industry

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. ~ Rob13Talk 14:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Initializing thoughts and rationale (discussion) can be found here [Link]. CN1 (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mixed Response:I agree that a merger of the two categories makes sense. However, I disagree with the idea of renaming it 'Clothing industry' or the underlying reasoning that the term is "used more often", because I believe that to be incorrect. People in the garment industry call it the garment industry. It may be an antiquated or less used term by the general public, but that is not the point. People in the industry also use the term haberdasher, milliner, etc. I also think the categories themselves support this. As is stated, the category clothing industry was only started some months ago, and garment industry category is 10 years old. The clothing industry category only has 3 subcategories and 7 pages, whereas garment industry has 8 subcategories and 41 pages. Centerone (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because the CfD tags were just placed today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 19:54, 15 July 2016 (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:Celebrity Big Brother (UK) contestants

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 21#Category:Celebrity Big Brother (UK) contestants

Australian societies

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: relisted here. ~ Rob13Talk 15:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Victoria (Australia) society
  • Propose renaming Category:Victoria (Australia) society to Category:Victorian (Australia) Society or Category:Society in Victoria (Australia)
Nominator's rationale: See Tasmania and other states with 'a' final letter JarrahTree 13:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer second as Victorian also refers to a historical period; the first format is clumsy. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the observation - good point JarrahTree 01:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Society of Victoria (Australia) per unambiguity, consistency with Society of Macau and Society of Georgia (country), and to avoid clumsy interruption by a disambiguator. --PanchoS (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:South Australia society
Nominator's rationale: See Tasmania JarrahTree 13:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:South Australian society per both consistency and natural language. --PanchoS (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Western Australia society
Nominator's rationale: See Tasmania - lack of possessive 'n' renders meaning not usual usage JarrahTree 13:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Western Australian society per both consistency and natural language. --PanchoS (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Tasmania society
Nominator's rationale: Tasmania society is not current usage (Tasmania'n' would have been ok) - the parent cat specifically incorporated the possessive 'n' (Australia'n') - if Australian can be used, states ending in 'a' should have the same for consistency of usage
another editor currently doing a lot of Tasmanian editing suggests Society in Tasmania - noting that other states of Australia with 'a' final letters, with lack of possessive 'n' requires changing as it is not correct usage JarrahTree 13:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. When I created these, I patterned them after the subcategories of Category:Society of the United States by state and Category:Canadian society by province or territory, which just use "NAME-OF-PLACE society", without amending the name. Eg, Category:Pennsylvania society rather than Category:Pennsylvanian society and Category:British Columbia society rather than Category:British Columbian society. But I've no objection to changing the format for the Australian ones if something else is preferred, as long as redirects are kept. We do also have Category:New South Wales society, Category:Australian Capital Territory society, Category:Northern Territory society, and Category:Queensland society, which have no FOOian form that could be adopted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support first option. The use of a demonym works well (except Victoria), but the second would also do. I do not like applying the US practice to another country. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not a "US practice". As noted, when I created them I simply used the same format that was used for the US and Canada. Absent WP:ENGVAR issues, there is not a lot of justification for changing a format solely to be different than how the US one is named! Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all the above in the format Society in FOO as opposed to FOOian society on the basis that Category:Australian Capital Territory society, Category:New South Wales society, Category:Norfolk Island society, Category:Northern Territory society, and Category:Queensland society follow the same format of Society in FOO. Rangasyd (talk) 10:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Rangasyd: those categories you listed do not follow the "Society in FOO" format. Did you mean to say "on condition that" rather than "on the basis that"? Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Good Olfactory: yes, "on condition that" the aforementioned categories follow the same format of Society in FOO. Rangasyd (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, generally prefer the second option, and besides the second option has the additional advantage of avoiding the Victorian problem that Peterkingiron mentioned. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Tasmanian society per both consistency and natural language. --PanchoS (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2016 (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:Nigerian cycling biography stubs

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: upmerge category. No result relating to the template. It would be highly unusual to merge/delete a stub template without a discussion specific to that; we usually keep them and just use them to populate the parent category until they are transcluded on sufficient stubs. ~ Rob13Talk 15:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Nigerian cycling biography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: 6 articles in permanent category. Stub category not needed. Propose deleting category and upmerging template to Category:Nigerian sportspeople stubs and Category:African cycling biography stubs. Dawynn (talk) 10:28, 15 July 2016 (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 tennis biography stubs

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 category. WP:TfD is that-a-way for the template. Typically, stub templates are upmerged rather than deleted, though. ~ Rob13Talk 19:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Malaysian tennis biography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: 6 total articles in permanent category. Stub category not necessary. Delete category and upmerge template to Category:Malaysian sportspeople stubs and Category:Asian tennis biography stubs. Dawynn (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2016 (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:Citation attribution

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 on deletion or renaming. -- Tavix (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Citation attribution to Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating some text that is in the public domain
Note: "some" inserted. DexDor (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively rename to Category:Articles using Template:Citation-attribution DexDor (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Clearer category title (with wording based on the text on the category page). In particular, the rename would make it clearer that this is not for articles about the topic of citations - nor is it for Wikipedia guidance pages about citations. Deletion of this category could also be considered (it's not clear to me that there's any purpose in grouping these articles together). Another option would be an upmerge to Category:Source attribution (which has almost identical text - and should also be renamed, but I'm doing things one step at a time). DexDor (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC) Part struck DexDor (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose moving or deleting As he header of the category already said (and I have just altered it to make it more specific), the article in the category are there because they include the template {{Citation-attribution}}. This is a hidden maintenance template and has been created to make it easier for editors to maintain the template and the articles which use it. The proposed rename is not valid as there many man other types of template used for incorporating text from the public domain see the category Category:Attribution templates which lists 235 such templates. The category under discussion is only used by the {{Citation-attribution}} similarly the template {{source-attribution}} populates Category:Source attribution for the same maintenance reasons. Neither category exists to list "Wikipedia articles incorporating text that is in the public domain", they exist to make the maintenance of those templates easier. Using the names of the templates ties them together and easy to understand. There are two distinct templates for reasons discussed in Wikipedia:Plagiarism and Category:Attribution templates-- PBS (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1. Pages are normally categorized because the page has a particular characteristic (such as needing maintenance); a template is one way of putting a page into a category, but we don't normally categorize pages (specifically) because they use a (particular) template. We have very few pages-using-<template> categories (apart from pages-with-incorrect-use-of-<template> categories) - and most/all of those I'm aware of were created by yourself.
2. There is no rule that the name of a category populated by a template should have a name that matches the template name; there are several problems such a rule would cause (e.g. cases where several templates populate one category and/or pages can also be placed in the category directly using a category tag) and there are many, many categories that do not follow such a "rule" - e.g. Category:Human name disambiguation pages is populated by {{Hndis}} (and {{disambiguation|hn}} etc). Many categories have been renamed at CFD from cryptic names typically used for templates to more meaningful names typically used for categories (some examples). I don't recall any CFDs that have renamed a category in the reverse direction (to a more cryptic name) - nor even any CFDs where such a rename was proposed.
3. Cryptic category names may not be a problem for those who are familiar with the templates (and who realise that the category name matches a template name), but for anyone else (e.g. seeing category names at the bottom of a page or navigating the category structure) they are very unhelpful - especially where the category structure has a mix of meaningful names and cryptic names.
4. Your comment refers several times to this category being to maintain a template, but templates need little (if any) maintenance (i.e. editing of the template) so can you explain what you mean? I suspect that you see a much closer mapping between templates and categories than is actually usually the case - e.g. what I think is your (Freudian) mistake of referring to "a hidden maintenance template" (I think you mean "a hidden maintenance category").
5. Category names don't need to match template names to tie them together - categories and templates can (and many do) refer to each other.
6. The category text says "This ... category includes Wikipedia articles incorporating some text in the public domain which are not in a more specific category.", but you say the category is not to "list "Wikipedia articles incorporating text that is in the public domain"" - Reading between the lines of your comment, I'm wondering if you intend this category to be a maintenance category (i.e. a category for pages that have a problem) for Wikipedia articles that should use a more specific attribution template. If that's the case then the category name (and its text) should be changed to make that clear - however, the text at Template:Citation-attribution doesn't match that interpretation.
7. Your statement "There are two distinct templates for reasons discussed in ... Category:Attribution templates." is also incorrect (not that I think the existence of 2 templates means that there needs to be 2 categories). DexDor (talk) 08:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC
Pinging PBS - note: I'd be particularly be interested in an answer to the question at the start of my point 4. DexDor (talk) 04:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your arguments, and presumably you do to, or you would be suggesting deleting the category not changing its name. -- PBS (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to reply directly to any/all of the points (1-7) I've made? And, as I said, I'd particularly like you to explain what you mean by "maintain the template". DexDor (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that there is any need to reply your specific points in any more detail because you and I clearly disagree at a fundamental level over the usage of hidden maintenance categories, it not you would have proposed its deletion not its renaming. To give one example: in reply to your point 7 the category is not there to aid readers find a list of all Wikipedia articles that contain PD text. Whether that would or would not be useful is beyond the bounds of this discussion. If it were to exist it would not be a hidden category and it would have to be added to all the PD templates in Category:Attribution templates. This category exists to support editors make informed decisions about maintaining the template; and what I meant by "maintain the template" is make informed decisions on how to improve it in light of its usage. -- PBS (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re "This category exists to support editors make informed decisions about ... how to improve [the template] in light of its usage." - there have only been 3 edits to that template since 2010 (and at least 2 of those edits had nothing to do with what articles use the template). DexDor (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re "in reply to your point 7 the category is not there to aid readers..." - (1) readers are not expected to see the category and nothing in my comments says otherwise, (2) I've no idea why you think that has any relevance to my point 7. DexDor (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can explain how this category can be useful (if not deleted, rename per nom). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reason this category is useful is because the template that places a page into it is a general purpose one. If someone creates a more specific one similar to the scores of them in Category:Attribution templates this category makes it relatively easier to find articles where the general template is used and can be replaced with the more specific one. It is also useful to check quickly how many articles are currently using this template (which for example helps make informed decisions about whether the template should be protected). -- PBS (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re "It is also useful to check quickly how many articles are currently using this template" - we have many thousands of templates (e.g. navboxes and infoboxes) that don't have such a category. DexDor (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, I'm satisfied by the explanation "this category makes it ... easier to find articles where the general template is used and can be replaced with [a] more specific one" so have struck my suggestion to consider deletion and instead proposed an alternative rename that is a better fit to that usage. DexDor (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose your "alternatively" suggestion. It is something that the text in the category explains so there is no need to expand the title of the category. Also as an aside why capitalise the "T" in template? -- PBS (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We normally try to make category names meaningful/clear (do you have any reason why this category should be an exception?). Regarding the capital "T" - the template is Template:Citation-attribution. DexDor (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2016 (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:Lists of deceased members of the United States Congress

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename as proposed. -- Tavix (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I propose matching the wording of these to the category Category:Dead people. "Deceased" is a fine word, but it can be seen as perhaps verging into euphamism territory. Anyway, the head category is not named Category:Deceased people. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Per WP:ENGVAR, shouldn't the new title be Category:Lists of passed members of the United States Congress? <grin> --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problem with deceased for Congress, but support the change to missing persons, which needs to be blunt. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. I see deceased people... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2016 (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:Musicians from Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Musicians from Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota to Category:Musicians from Minneapolis, Minnesota
Nominator's rationale: No need for categories for the region and the larger of the sister cities. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support If there are any entries for St. Paul, they should be merged to Category:Musicians from Saint Paul, Minnesota also....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:20, 15 July 2016 (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:Men sociologists

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. -- Tavix (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Men sociologists to Category:Male sociologists
Nominator's rationale: Every other category of men by occupation uses "male". This one should too. Mars Felix (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just a historical note, in case this discussion verges into deletion proposals. In 2013, the category was deleted after a CFD here, but the outcome was overturned to "no consensus" here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd favor deletion, still. A more useful category could be something like Category:Sociologists of gender issues, to indicate the topic of their specialization. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it gets deleted (or merged to a broader sociologists category) I don't oppose that result. Mars Felix (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. To match the rest of the categories in this category tree. Dimadick (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Male" is a biological term. This category relates to human society rather than to laboratory classifications. The study of society does not use the terminology of biologists any more than biologists use the terminology of sociologists. If the other categories use "male", let's fix them, rather than turn this one into another misplaced bit of biological terminology.
    BTW, I believe that this category should be deleted/upmerged, because both the CFD and DRV in 2013 ignored policy ... but I am not proposing deletion here, because it would be better to consider deletion in a standalone discussion explicitly tagged as a deletion or merger proposal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- The context requires an adjective, not a noun. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence that these folks differ in their practice by sex. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Category:Women sociologists exists because women have historically been a discriminated-against subgroup of sociologists, because diversity is something to be encouraged in sociology as everywhere else, because to get anywhere in sociology these women had to be exceptional, and because there are many reliably published works on women sociologists. Male sociologists, on the other hand, have been (and probably by many still are) considered the default, no more in need of a separate category than adult sociologists or human sociologists. This category only exists because some non-believer in the huge barriers still faced by academic women thought that removing any recognition for the women who have overcome those barriers by making everything equal (as if everything actually is equal now) was the way to go. It's WP:POINTy and serves no useful purpose as a defining characteristic of its subjects, and it should go. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category exists because some editors want to ignore the clear guidelines on why gender specific categories are created and instead impose a different one. From a historical perspective women are a notable sub-group within sociology, men are not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comments BrownHairedGirl - noting comments by Good Olfactory - (there is never enough context in cfd discussions, and these two provide good background) JarrahTree 01:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preferably Delete per David Eppstein and John Pack Lambert above. But if kept, support, because 'men sociologists' is plainly ungrammatical. Robofish (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2016 (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:Attacks in France

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/merge as proposed. -- Tavix (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't know if at this point we really need this kind of intermediate categories, but while it seems to work for the U.S., I don't see how this would turn helpful for the case of France, given our limited coverage of non-terrorist crimes in France. --PanchoS (talk) 00:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In respect for the victims of the atrocity in Nice, any action should be put on hold for several months. --ClemRutter (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... but you do know that "attack" would legitimately cover fist attacks in pubs, cases of domestic violence, terrorist attacks, and military attacks alike? I think, we're better off to avoid that hodgepodge and have the violence category more specifically and more meaningfully subdivided, instead of creating yet another intermediate layer. --PanchoS (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. I'm struggling to see the difference between 'attacks' and 'violence'; it's hard to imagine a violent incident which doesn't involve anyone attacking anyone. And I'm sympathetic to PanchoS' view that 'attacks' is far too broad a category anyway. Robofish (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2016 (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/2016_July_15&oldid=1074816620"