Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Violence between women

Category:Violence between women

The cat had 3 files. I took out two. No reason to make this gender-based categorization. I propose its deletion. E4024 (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

We can also delete Category:Violence between men. I really do not see any use on opening these cats for 3-4 images. What will be the next step? Violence between two women and one man? Violence between LGBT individuals and women? Violence between two men and one women? Violence between adolescent girls? Violence between an adolescent girl and a woman, which can be easily categorized to Category:Violence between females or Category:Violence between female humans, but we will also have to open at least one of those two latter cats. --E4024 (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 Keep Sorry I accidently logged out while undoing your descategorization (I did hide my own IP afterwards). I don't see a problem here. Please don't empty categories before sending them to deletion. Even if you don't, "media consumers" may be interested in images depicting women fighting each other. Anyway, violence between women is apparently studied by people, this thing cannot be said of most of our gendered categories... And there are many wikipedia articles written about violence in a gender-based fashion. Strakhov (talk) 05:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

And well, it may have three files, but as you are probably aware... Commons is a work-in-progress. Strakhov (talk) 05:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 Comment Some food for thought, please don't take this as an ad hominem, it's only intended to pose an example on gender categories: A while ago you uploaded an image and included "Category:Women eating". How is there more "reason to make that gender-based categorization" with such concept than with "violence between women" or "between men"? Why do you think media consumers may have interest in finding files depicting women or men while eating but not while fighting between them or so? Is it "eating" a more gender-based concept? And the slippery slope argument: "What will be the next step? Category:Two men and one woman eating? Category:Female humans eating"? Strakhov (talk) 06:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• First things first: I confess I have a "list of users to avoid interaction" and the initiator of this cat happened to be one of the few people on top of the list. I do not have the habit to look at who has done something before proposing it for deletion or smt else. It would not be politically correct. Now it will not be politically correct to avoid discussion either. So I will make an exception to my effort of trying to stay away from some users. There were three files in the cat before I decided to open this discussion. In one of them, File:Women at Fort Bliss strike back, learn to fight 120818-A-WO769-429.jpg we see two female soldiers "boxing". When I removed the cat in question I replaced it with Category:Female boxers. Maybe the two women in the image are not even amateur boxers, but they are "boxing". They do this as part of their military training. They have no violent behaviour at all. And I was reverted! (Let us see now if the person who reverted me will place all boxers, mail or female, under violence cats...) The other file I removed from this cat is File:"Two women". Augsburg, Martin Engelbrecht, 1740 - 1750 circa.jpg, a painting. In the image, two women are making a "duel". Therefore I replaced the cat we are discussing with Category:Duels. It was also reverted. When I saw those reverts, with the reverting user's name erased, what I simply thought (with all my frankness) was this: It must be the work of some vandal who got mad at me because within the same day I got deleted Category:Videos of urinating women or something similar. I imagined what a peculiar user name they must have used in those edits that that an admin erased the user name... No, it was not the case. These disruptive edits were made by an admin! Two women making a "duel" with pistols at hand was reverted from Category:Duels and two women "boxing" were reverted from the Category:Female boxers. I'm stunned! Look, if you are not good at categorizing you may keep away from doing that until you gain experience. Being an admin does not mean one knows everything and in this case it is cristal clear. Look at the Category:Violence between men that also you opened. Did you not see that your Category:Men was replaced with Category:Men by setting? That happened a year ago. Then you had to begin considering if you made good cats and also make some correction to the -IMHO unnecessary- female similar (the one that we are discussing here). You did not. In this discussion you remind us that "other things exist". Yes, I made the horrible mistake of adding something to Category:Women eating, a couple of years ago, a category which was opened five years before I added anything there and is full of similar images. "Other things exist", of course, but a very unlucky comparison by you, sorry. This discussion is finished for me as regards the famous cat. However, as you opened the door to "other things exist" let me tell you something also (not only one of us will go against that OTHERSTUFFEXIST thingy, I also must be given an opportunity to do that): Your wrong reverts of my correct edits to those two files, and hastily, even forgetting that you were unlogged, show that you exhibit sentimental overreactions. People who have such outbursts (myself included) should not be admins here. Admins must only come from among cold-blooded users. If I were in your place, I would abandon that status. Admin Strakhov, resign.

That's all I have to say about this discussion. For me it can be closed. --E4024 (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)