September 22
Category:Androcide
- 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:Massacres of men. – Fayenatic London 09:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Pointless category; if it means anything, it just duplicates Category:Homicide. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: if this is deleted, the lead article androcide must be added back into the parent Category:Homicide. The other two current member pages were added to the new category, rather than moved from another category. – Fayenatic London 21:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I think the nominators rationale is invalid because we already have categories representing subsets of homicides, such as regicide and infanticide. The second reason I think this cat is okay is because there is an increasing amount of coverage in the media of violence specifically directed at men, and when coupled with historic examples, I think this is sufficiently distinct as palpable, as well as useful as a navigation tool for people seeking to compare historic incidents, fictional/literary incidents and contemporary examples. 06:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwolit iets (talk • contribs)
Keep -- This is specifically about killing men, including Black Widow Spiders that eat their mates. Historically most rulers have been men, but regicide is about killing a person because they were a ruler, not because they were a man: it is correctly not included. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Black Widow Spiders' mates are not men; Category:Androcide is a subcategory of Category:Homicide. So the category can't include the killing of male spiders. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Peterkingiron: do you have any opinion on the alternative suggested below? – Fayenatic London 21:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The head article explicitly states that androcide is the killing of males of any species, specifically citing fruit flies in its own explanation of itself. So the category could include the killing of male spiders, if we had an article about that phenomenon to file in it. Bearcat (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Category:Massacres of men, both categories serve roughly the same purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support merge to Category:Massacres of men. It is currently a subcat, so that implementation may be by merging that here and then renaming. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This term includes the killing of boys, which does not fit in the subcat Category:Massacres of men.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure if this is a problem, because Category:Massacres of men is primarily a gender-based category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Marcocapelle. Apart from the eponym itself the contents here are massacres, not individual murders of individual men, and one of the two is double-filed in both categories anyway (but shouldn't be, given that one's a subcategory of the other.) Which leaves this as an WP:OCEPON for a concept, without the spinoff content needed to justify an eponymous category. I agree that gender-based analysis of murder is somewhat of a thing, but that's why we have the article androcide — it doesn't mean we need a category for it if there's this little content to actually file in it, and if the female companion Category:Femicide doesn't exist alongside it. Bearcat (talk) 04:28, 23 October 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:Time-based economics
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: rename, in contrast to what the current category name suggests this category is not about a specific field of economics (there is no article Time-based economics). The category contains a rather loose collection of articles that deal with the factor time in economics. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:04, 22 September 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:British Rallycross Championship
- 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) 04:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category layer since it is composed of just the main article. -- Tavix (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for Now with no objection to recreating if it ever gets up to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:08, 3 October 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:Ciney Villages
- 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 both into a new Category:Sub-municipalities of Ciney. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Unusual way of categorizing. Wwikix (talk) 11:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi I did not know. Thank you for explanation. Now that I see that, I have no problems with it. Pyrusca (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename the first to Category:Sub-municipalities of Ciney, merge the second to Category:Ciney as these aren't sub-municipalities. Frankly I'm surprised that hamlets are considered to be notable at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Marcocapelle: the article on sub-municipality indicates that this term does not necessarily designate an administrative unit. In Wallonia (where Ciney is), it is not only used for former municipalities, but may refer to a section of a municipality. Therefore, can't hamlets be sub-municipalities as much as villages can? – Fayenatic London 12:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Deelgemeente the term is reserved to former municipalities and in article Ciney the two hamlets are not included in the list of sub-municipalities, however you're right it may make sense to combine all of them in one category, regardless whether it's called sub-municipalities, villages or populated places. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge both either to Category:Sub-municipalities of Ciney (currently empty) or at worst Category:Populated places in Ciney. As Oculi says, we no longer "hamlets" and "villages", which were merged to "settlements" and then Populated places. Which should be the target, I must leave to others. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 25 September 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.