The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: 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. – FayenaticLondon 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]
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]
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]
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 articleandrocide — 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: 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.
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.
Note: I tried to start a discussion at Category talk:Ciney Villages after Pyrusca (talk·contribs) created these non-standard categories, but then Wwikix created Category:Sub-municipalities of Ciney and merged the contents without waiting for consensus, and nominated these here for deletion; then Pyrusca reverted, alleging disruptive editing. Well, removing CFD tags and discussions is even more disruptive. This discussion is now open, and is to be conducted here. – FayenaticLondon 20:54, 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]
@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? – FayenaticLondon 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]
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.
