Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 29 August 31 >

August 30

[edit]

Category:LGBT philosophers

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, defer for Gender, Race, Sexuality, take your pick --Kbdank71 14:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic and mostly gossip.

In this category, Foucault or Butler indeed write about sexuality, so OK, there's a connection. But of, e.g., Wittgenstein, it's pointless trivia. It's much like a hypothetical Category:Philosophers with facial moles because, y'know, some had them and some didn't Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:21, 2005 August 30 (UTC) ...apparently there is a meta-discussion on similar needless categories. So I change my vote to: Delete and salt the earth where the category once grew, so that nothing can ever sprout up again.
  • Delete. A somewhat stronger case can be made for keeping this cat, compared with the "secular jewish philosopher" one. However, I vote to delete because I don't think there's value in having this cat. I would support a cat on "Philosophers concerned with Sexuality," or some such, but not this, which seems to place persons' personal sexual preferences (which are by no means always static, or even verifiable per WP:V) above their value as philosophers.—Encephalon | ζ  05:13:37, 2005-08-31 (UTC)
  • Delete. No argument. siafu 05:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not categorize by sexuality. Radiant_>|< 09:09, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Promotion of a point of view. CalJW 01:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Jeez people, how many times are the same categories gonna come up on CfD? -Seth Mahoney 01:16, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and suspend discussion until resolved at Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality. Seth is right. This is getting tiresome. Can we try to reach an agreed consensus about this and not just repeat ourselfs at CfD? Radiant! started the page to try and hash this out. -- Samuel Wantman 04:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Samuel and Seth, thank you for your comments. I hope you will consider being less rude, however. The above meta-discussion page was only created at 07:45:18 on Sept 1. All the votes here before yours were placed before that. I agree it would be nice for those who are interested to go over and join that discussion, but it was a tad impossible for the editors above to do so: the page didn't exist when they voted (or when the nominator put the category up for deletion).—Encephalon | ζ  05:46:36, 2005-09-02 (UTC) Incidentally, might I add the existence of that page does not nullify the opinions expressed here.—Encephalon | ζ 
Quite sorry if the comments seemed rude. Of course the page was just created, but there have been LGBT categories nominated for deletion over and over. Perhaps our frustration is showing. Of course everyone's opinion counts. I'm just suggesting that rather than have this repeated discussion, we try to work something out that we can all live with. -- Samuel Wantman 10:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I happened across the fact that this CfD was linked to from Wikipedia:LGBT notice board. My impression, with all due respect to the voters, is that the "keep" votes that came along were via that link, and that they were rather knee-jerk "keep anything that says LGBT in it." Obviously, editors can vote whatever they like; but I'd really urge a more nuanced position than I see in evidence. I'm all in favor of LGBT categories that really pertain to why the thing in question in encyclopedic, I think they're dreadful for things that amount to gossip (which is most people categories). For example, LGBT books, films, organizations, laws, etc. are (or would be) great categories. Even people who are involved in gay rights or the like. But not where notability is unrelated to sexuality. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:02, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
With all respect, you're likely wrong about our motivations. Our votes may be knee-jerk, but its not a "keep anything that has LGBT in it" (most of us voted against keeping Category:LGBT ancient Greeks, for example). Its just frustration not only because every LGBT-related category appears on CfD at some point, but most seem to reappear every other week. We're all a little sick of putting work into something that just gets deleted because someone can't stand to see anything that references anything other than vanilla heterosexuality (I'm not saying that's what's going on here, but it has definitely happened elsewhere). So, you'll have to forgive the knee-jerk response, but hopefully it at least makes some sense now. And my vote is still keep. -Seth Mahoney 01:37, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Before we end up in a shouting match, let's talk about this category. There are four people in this category. Two of them, I don't know about and didn't find out much by reading their articles, the other two Judith Butler and Michel Foucault are most certainly philosophers who's work significantly deals with LGBT philosophy. If people want to argue for renaming this category, or limiting its members to a standard more strict than "They are LGBT and they are philosophers, they belong here", I'm willing to listen and discuss it. But I see very little of that among those calling for the deletion of this category. When being LGBT becomes as irrelevant as having a facial mole in this world, I too will call for the deletion of this category. Until that day, my vote stands. Keep. -- Samuel Wantman 05:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am indeed all in favor of having a category like Category:Philosophers who write about sexuality to include thinkers like Foucault and Butler (and a bunch more not listed). That would actually speak to the reason-for-notability of philosophers with articles. Of course, those included may or may not themselves be LGBT (and likewise if it were "philosophers who write about homosexuality" of something). This kind of good category is both verifiable and encyclopedic. And it ain't the category at issue here. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:25, 2005 September 3 (UTC)... in fact, being bold, I went ahead and created the actual useful category, and added a bunch of likely names to it; help add more relevant articles.
It isn't useful to make this category inclusive of all philosophers who write about sexuality. You would be including all forms of sexuality, not just LGBT. For now, at Wikipedia, the term is LGBT. There has been much discussion about what the best name is, and no better solution has yet found a consensus. Also, what is so terrible about including philosophers who happen to be LGBT, but don't write much about sexuality? If the problem is that their sexuality may be the result of "gossip", can't that be addressed without the necessity of deleting the category? A philosopher's sexuality might be trivial to you, but who is to say that it won't be important to someone else?-- Samuel Wantman 06:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is precisely what is useful. It speaks to the actual professional noteriety of the philosophers, and is verifiable from their works themselves. It's not just a "feel good" cheat about "those famous people are queer too, so I can feel better about myself" (which, unfortunately, seems to be the real sentiment in favor of the unencyclopedic categories). Feeling good about yourself is good, but WP ain't a therapy group. 70.109.229.212 19:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Foo films to Films directed by Foo

[edit]

Earlier discussion had proposed a uniform renaming of all subcats of Category:Films by director to the format Films directed by Firstname Lastname. Broader rename got lost in the shuffle and so I'll reanimate. -The Tom 21:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sexy Toons

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous user began tagging various articles with the category (see Betty Boop, Holli Would, Jessica Rabbit). I deleted the additions, since the category did not exist. Now he's created the category. At any rate, I can see a possible category for cartoon characters with sex appeal, but I don't think we really need one. If we do get one, it should not be named "Sexy Toons". BrianSmithson 20:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Schools of Thought

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by Category:Esoteric Schools of Thought.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Cities and Villages in Lebanon to Category:Cities and towns in Lebanon

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Cities and villages in Lebanon --Kbdank71 15:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naming convention. - Darwinek 15:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Famous courtesans and prostitutes

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

General policy is not to use the word famous in category titles. - SimonP 17:02, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Documentary Short Subject Oscar nominee, Category:Documentary Short Subject Oscar, Category:Documentary Feature Oscar and Category:Documentary Feature Oscar nominee

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, the proper term is "Academy Award" rather than "Oscar". Radiant_>|< 11:43, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Former companies of the Philippines to Category:Defunct companies of the Philippines

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Former companies of the United Kingdom to Category:Defunct companies of the United Kingdom

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Former" seems less of a value-judgement to me. The company might have been highly successful, and its business might be thriving under a new name. "Defunct" suggests that the company no longer exists because it failed, but there are many other reasons that could cause it to become an ex-company.

Mhkay 17:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:British aircraft manufacturers to Category:Defunct British aircraft manufacturers

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The category name needs to state that the companies in the category are no longer in business. --GCarty 09:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even if true, to follow the usual practice for the aircraft manufacturer categories, Defunct British aircraft manufacturers ahould be created as a subcategory of British aircraft manufacturers and populated appropriately. --Caerwine 09:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Defunct British aircraft manufacturers already has a parent category Aerospace companies of the United Kingdom. Since BAE Systems is the only actual British aircraft manufacturer remaining (at least one which has a Wikipedia article), I do not think an extra category is needed. --GCarty 10:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Does Short Brothers count as an extant aircraft manufacturer in the UK? 132.205.3.20 18:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:SOC occupations

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems to me systematic bias and POV. I am also unclear on the copyright implications. However I do not see why we should categorise according to United States government standards. I can understand an article on the subject, but not the need to replicate the category structure. Do we really categorise according to government dictate? Hiding talk 08:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a U.S. Government work, it certainly has no copyright problems. However the only bias problem I see is with the subcategories. Those should likely be renamed to include SOC in their titles. Categorization by SOC seems like a good idea, but it should be done in manner that alows for other notable occupational categorization systems such as the International Standard Classification of Occupations to also be used. Caerwine 09:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response 47-2141 Painter and decorator It's in there. Granted there are a number of synonyms for this code number in the big listing and the list you looked at may have listed only one for conciseness, but its there. Caerwine 05:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response It may well be in there somewhere, but should I have to go look? Is there a policy page somewher which dictates the usage of US government policy when categorising by occupation? If not, why can't Wikipedia grow its own? Why does Category:Construction trades workers seem to dictate what can be categorised there? What are we to call other categories of Construction trades workers which are categorised by a differing standard? Are we to start disambiguating categories? Why can we not use our own judgement when categorising, keeping these international standards as reference tools but not as the rule? Hiding talk 09:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Why should Wikipedia grow its own? Wouldn't it be better to use a scheme or schemes used by others and for which data that can be incorporated into Wikipedia will be more easily attainable? The only thing I will agree with on what appears to the majority opinion her is that if only one scheme is to be supported it should be ISCO and not SOC so as to avoid having a U.S.-centric categorization scheme. However, I don't see the need to restrict ourselves to just one as categories do not form a tree. As for you having to look, that depends on whether you're editting or reading doesn't it? ;)
  • Response to anon When editing wikipedia I am only constrained by the policies. If using this standard is a policy, please show me where it is written, otherwise I am free to edit as I see fit, and the burden is on you to show why Wikipedia should not grow its own. As stated above I have no objection to using such sources as reference, I am objecting to the hardcoding of such a structure into our category system as a de facto standard. I also fail to see where you draw the notion that a majority opinion exists to use the ISCO standard instead, and am again failing to see what your usage of categories do not form a tree is meant to show, and am regrettably failing to see your final point. Hiding talk 07:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. I don't get the use of categorising things by one country's scheme and not another. I do not think we should bother to categorise them by every country's scheme. Ergo I do not think we should categorise like this at all — it does not extract any encyclopedic information from the article that should not already be in a list somewhere. -Splash 01:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While I agree that every country would be overkill, this is the English Wikipedia, so categorizing by the standards of English-speaking countries does not strike me as overkill. ISCO is an international standard used by the EU, so that should take care of Britain and Ireland. Australia and New Zealand have their own separate systems which are based on ISCO and use the same fundamental structure. SOC is used by the United States. Canada and South Africa have their own system which seem mostly unrelated to ISCO or SOC, though they follow a model closer to ISCO. I was unable to find other occupational category standards that might be used by other English speaking countries. (In particular, India uses industrial categories, but apparently not occupational categories.) Caerwine 05:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • To suggest we should only pay attention to English speaking countries is a bit unusual. We have lots of non-native English-speaking editors. Why not include their countries? I don't really see any overlap between occupational classification and language. Moreover, I don't think there is any encyclopedic information extracted from the articles by this category. It is enough to simply add a half-sentence mention in the article. -Splash 16:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sytemic bias. Cultural imperialism. CalJW 13:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Overcategorization. --Kbdank71 14:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Splash. siafu 17:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and we should also dump some of the useless subcats like Category:Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations - SimonP 23:57, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nominator. Also, agree with SimonP about deleting most the other categories that are specific to SOC. --Mairi 06:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Speculative meteorology

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

copied from WP:SFD

Silly creation of this stub-cat to go along with the equally silly {{ChickenLittle}} which is currently on Tfd. Recommend delete. ∞Who?¿? 21:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While i thoroughly think that category ought to be deleted, it doesn't belong here as it's not a category for stubs (it's a subcategory of Category:Stubs because the author tagged the page as a stub). This vote should be moved to WP:CFD. --Mairi 22:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be sure, I put it on SFD, I knew it wasn't necessarily a stub, but beings it stated it was, it was safer for history sakes to list it there first. Keeps anyone from saying "it doesnt belong on Cfd its a stub", etc. Although I'm sure Grutness is right about speedy. ∞Who?¿? 02:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the stub notice to the more appropriate {{popcat}}. Moving this nomination to CFD (although it's probably a speedy)... Grutness...wha? 00:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC) (PS: Delete)[reply]
  • Speedied as nonsensical. Radiant_>|< 09:56, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Titans members to Category:Teen Titans members

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:DC Comics Titans --Kbdank71 14:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The main article name is Teen Titans and it is the name of the group. Titans members could be ambigous as well. ∞Who?¿? 00:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, some members of the category were members of the (New) Titans or Team Titans and not of the Teen Titans. "Titans members" covers all of the above without being misleading. -Sean Curtin 02:30, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose for same reasons. Team Titans, New Titans, and The Titans do not sound like Teen Titans to me. KramarDanIkabu 02:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of that, then it would seem that we need two categories to cover these then. ∞Who?¿? 03:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_30&oldid=1110526578"