Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 15

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 (so keep) K1Bond007 21:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Pro-life celebrities and Category:Pro-choice celebrities: If the views of these people play a role in their public presence, then put them in something like Category:Pro-life activists or Category:Pro-choice activists. But having a category for celebrities (which in itself is an annoying buzzword) with opinion X who are not celebrities because of that opinion is unencyclopedic fancruft. If it really should be on wikipedia, then perhaps as a list, but not as a category. Aecis ^praatpaal 23:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I hope the closing admin will take note of User:Pitchka's voter canvassing by talk page spamming. Aecis ^praatpaal 09:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my view this is getting out of hand. Pitchka notified some 50+ people who had identified themselves as Roman Catholics in a clear attempt to sabotage any attempt to determine Wikipedia consensus. I have no personal opinion on these categories, but if they are to be deleted this cannot be determined by consulting people selected on the basis of their religion. Wikipedia has no religion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Inappropriate nomination. This was just discussed and the result was no consensus. It's too soon to bring it up again. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 23:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Furthermore, in the previous discussion, everybody clamored that the information should be a list and not a category. Well, there was a list. And it just got voted to be deleted, in a discussion where people said it should be a category and not a list. The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 23:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • When was it discussed? I can't find any trace of it on the talk pages, which is where a notice is posted after a failed AfD. Aecis ^praatpaal 23:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (a relative CfD-newbie)[reply]

Strong KEEP both of these categories are important, and I believe they have already been nominated in the past with the decision to keep. Chooserr 23:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This CFD occured 2005-11-24. There are two relevant CFD's: "abortion related categories" and "Category:Pro-life politicians." The result of both CFD's was "no consensus." If Aecis had been aware of this, I would've said that renominating so soon was in bad faith. But most people don't follow CFD regularly, so I assumed he was not aware of this. But it would be inappropriate to have this up for discussion again, so soon.
• Also, the related AFD for List of anti-abortion people occurred here. The result of the debate was "delete." I mention this because the present nominator says that this should be a list instead of a category, and because many people in the previous CFD's stated that this should be a list instead of a category. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 00:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not aware of the previous cfd's. I spend most of my wikipedia days
    stub sorting. A small nuance though: I didn't say it should be listified. I said that perhaps it might be list material, but definitely not category material. Aecis ^praatpaal 00:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• VERY STRONG KEEPI agree.--Anti-Anonymex2^{Come to my page! I've gone caliente loco!} 00:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Didn't I vote to keep this very recently? (But I do accept that this very quick renomination was made in good faith.) AnnH ^(talk) 00:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Very, very, very stong delete and listify. edit-war magnet since "celebrities" is subjective and the life of most celebrities does not revolve on the topic rather than their careers. A category for politicians is more valid since they have power of influence on laws. --Vizcarra 00:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nominator makes good points.--
  nixie 00:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nominator and common sense Soltak | Talk 00:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This category is important. Dominick ^(TALK) 01:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Celebrity political stances, on any topic, while not necessarily intelligent, are interesting and an important part of many of their (or anybody's) character. --Jakes18 01:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jdavidb. Argue whether the 'celebrity' belongs in the category on the talk page for the 'celebrity'. There's nothing wrong with the category. --Elliskev 02:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This is important to have. JG of Borg 02:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. I agree with suggestion above that if they are know for their views on the issue then a category for activists would be appropriate. There is no mention of political stance in many of these celebrieties articles, nor is it the reason they are well known. -- Adz 02:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if for no other reason than the recent discussion/vote. Avalon 02:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. If they aren't activists, it's not relevant. --SarekOfVulcan 02:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep valid and interesting categories. Dwain 03:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: It's not like celebrities prefer to hide their political opinions. --King of All the Franks 03:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Where was Aecis when
  Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Pro-Life Supporters & List of Pro-Choice Supporters was discussed? How odd to come to request a deletion of the work of others (the category) and suggest work for others to implement his proposed solution (the list). Aecis, if you had meticulously created a complete and accurate Category:Pro-life activists and Category:Pro-choice activists, and then said Category:Pro-life celebrities and Category:Pro-choice celebrities had become redundant, you just might have a point. But what you've proposed here is a net loss of verifiable information to the Wikipedia that I find interesting. But even if I didn't personally find it interesting, I'm not voting a Delete on accurate information in the Wikipedia that people find interesting and especially so on a serious matter of public policy. patsw 03:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Where I was in early September? I was out

stub sorting. I indeed didn't vote in that AfD, for the simple reason that I didn't know that it was going on. Now why should that matter in this CfD? This CfD is about these categories, not about those lists. Also note that I didn't suggest anything, like I've said to Jdavidb. I never said this should be listified. I said that perhaps it might be list material, but definitely not category material. Let me tell you why I want to see this deleted. I came across this category via Lance Armstrong. Lance Armstrong is notable as an American cyclist who has won the Tour de France after surviving testicular cancer (in Armstrong's case, cancer plays an important role in his career, life and works). This means that he should be categorized as an American cyclist, as a Tour de France winner and as a cancer survivor. It is completely irrelevant to his presence in the public domain that he is pro-choice. Perhaps it could be mentioned as a factoid on his article, but it is no basis for categorization until he actually starts a pro-choice campaign. And in that case, he belongs in Category:Pro-choice activists, not Category:Pro-choice celebrities. In other words: if these people are notable for their views, then they should be in an appropriate category, but simply being celebrity X with opinion Y is no ground for notability. Aecis ^praatpaal 09:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

I just want to clarify that I never intended to suggest this was a bad-faith nomination. I understand that Aecis was out elsewhere, doing good work. Some of us only stumble across CFD once a month (like me) or once a year. Nothing's wrong with the fact that it was nominated, but Wikipedia does have the precedent that after something's been nominated for deletion it shouldn't be discussed again immediately. For that reason, I think any administrator viewing this at the close of discussion should recognize that the previous nomination was no consensus. It looks like this one will be, as well. Seems like if this is to continue through the normal discussion period that each participant in the previous CFDs ought to be notified. Jdavidb(talk • contribs) 23:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Delete -Aecis says all I'd want to say above. --
    Sachabrunel 15:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Neutral If you can prove that their stance on abortion plays a part in their image (and this is mentioned in their respective article), keep it. If not, delete it, or drastically change the list. Mred64 04:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral As per Mred64 -- Chanlord 04:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Celebreties are notible for the causes they speak out for and against. — Eoghanacht ^talk 14:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Aecis. This category is essentially "Celebrities who happen to be Pro-whichever", which is completely unencyclopedic. Categories for activists or lobbyists would be more appropriate.
  siafu 15:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep/trim list per Mred64 -- getcrunkjuice 20:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to administrators: check the user pages and recent contributions for
  Gay rights in Iraq AfD where several voters attacked the article for alleged NPOV problems not actually present in the article, apparently having read only each other's opinions and not the acutal subject. This included Pitchka's statement "Homosexuals are non-notable in themselves. Just because they have a world agenda to make what they have to say important they are an irrelavant minority that has nothing of merit to say as a group to the world, a country, a state, a grade school, or even a street corner." The actual article does not advocate homosexuality: it's a dry discussion of Iraqi law. There may be a need to monitor certain editors for push voting. User histories reveal a concerted effort to pad the Category:Pro-life celebrities with celebrities whose views on abortion are ambiguous. Whatever one's personal convictions may be, this is no way for editors to behave. Therefore Strong delete on the present discussion for political activism. Durova 20:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I think you're unfairly lumping all keep voters together based on contibutions of a few. Besides, your findings have absolutely nothing to do with the merit of the categories. --Elliskev 21:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noone is lumping all keep voters together. But this doesn't change the fact that there is a structured and organized campaign going on to fix and skew this vote, which is something that needs to be monitored, as it bends wikipedia content to meet religious povs. Aecis ^praatpaal 21:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. To clarify, many participants on both sides act in good faith. I do urge the administrators to investigate for patterns of deliberate push voting. My example from the other discussion illustrates that those people may not even be reading the relevant material. Durova 21:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just concerned as someone who is pro-life. It bothers me that my opinion may be subject to scrutiny that presupposes an agenda. I just ask that these types of allegations be examined carefully. --Elliskev 21:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of lumping together keep voters: I just noticed that of the 14 keep votes currently cast, thirteen are from users who cast their vote here after Pitchka left a note on their talk page. The only one who didn't vote here after having been contacted by Pitchka is Pitchka himself.... Aecis ^praatpaal 00:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC) Update: two more keep votes: One from Hégésippe Cormier, who was informed of this cfd by Pitchka, and a provisional keep from Christopher Parham, who wasn't notified of this cfd. 10:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It could be that he chose well. What I mean is that the 13 people that were notified and voted obviously have an interest in the Pro-life/Pro-choice subject. There's no reason to think that there is a wikimovement to sway the POV of Wikipedia. It's just that he contacted people that he thought would be interested in voting. I, for one, don't remember having any other contatct with the editor that notified me. My guess is that he noticed my categorization as Pro-Life. Again, he chose well. I do have an opinion as to the merit of these categories. I don't want this to turn into something it isn't. I honestly think that your concerns are in good faith, and understandable. I just and don't think that the agenda exist. --Elliskev 00:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he obviously noticed your categorization as a pro-lifer, because he said on your talk page "Hi, I see that you are listed as a Pro-Life Wikipedian." It doesn't get much more obvious than that. You also say that he "contacted people that he thought would be interested in voting." I can imagine that not only pro-life wikipedians are interested in this cfd. I can imagine that pro-choice wikipedians might also want to vote here. Why weren't they contacted? Because he wasn't sure they were gonna vote his way? Now as to the agenda: I'm not a conspiracy thinker. What I do note however is an organized campaign, a concerted effort, by (most prominently) Pitchka and Chooserr to stop us "abortion zealots" (which in itself is funny enough, because I, the nominator, am pro-life) from doing whatever it is that we seem to have in mind. They are using the credibility wikipedia has amassed throughout the years to promote and push their religious pov's. Aecis ^praatpaal 00:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should state that my personal view on abortion in no way affects my votes on deletion nominations. Anyone who checks my history will see that I am scrupulous on this matter. My private opinion is just that: private. Here I act as an editor. Durova 01:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I do see where you are coming from, and I guess I kind of strayed. I have no idea of the motives of others. My main concern is the ascribing of motive to those who reponded to the notice of the CfD. I guess I don't really have anything else to add here that would be helpful (if anything that I have already added was helpful, which could be debated). However, my vote to keep stands. Thanks for hearing me out and feel free to respond on my talk page. --Elliskev 01:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "the ascribing of motive to those who reponded to the notice of the CfD": I stand by what I said on WP:AN/I: "Technically speaking, these users are not meat puppets. These are all decent and appreciated contributors. However, it's safe to say that their joining the cfd was a result of a deliberate canvassing by Pitchka. Since Chooserr has done the same with an AfD, this behaviour cannot be viewed as isolated acts. This is a clear pattern to influence the outcome of votes." Aecis ^praatpaal 01:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Respecting the above comment, my request for administrator oversight referred to the possibility that more than two editors might be canvassing for votes. I wouldn't hold it against anyone for responding to a comment on their own talk page. Leaving umpteen identical messages on umpteen talk pages in hopes of swaying a discussion - that violates my sense of good faith. Durova 03:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For anyone interested, my notice to this VfD only mentioned that Pro-Life Celebrities was being deleted. There was no mention of Pro-Choice Celebrities being deleted in it. I also found this on other user pages as well. Omitting that changes the context. When both categories are up here, it is neutral. The message on my talk page made it seem (or at least to me) that it was some POV delete. Mred64 06:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel I must comment. Aecis is starting a campaign against me. I should be investigated for letting people know that these categories were up for deletion. Do I even believe what I am hearing? Is there something wrong with letting people know that an article is up for deletion. Again, mind you? Aecis seems to be a radical in that "he" has been smearing and lying about my actions on other pages as well. Because I don't think that Homosexual issues are relevant for the majority of people around the world I am being labeled biased. Aecis is telling people that I told people how to vote on another deletion page. This is not true. I have received messages on my talk page letting me know that something is up for a vote. I was happy to hear about it in several cases. If I had not gotten a message I may not have known. I never told people how to vote! Aecis is on a campaign to change every reference to BC and AD in Wikipedia. Against policy from what I understand. If an article was started using AD and BC they are suppose to be kept that way. Apparantly the reason he wants to change the most commonly used dating system that has been used for over a thousand years is because of a great hatred toward Christianity. Because I and a few others are arguing this change, using Wiki's own rules, from BC to BCE Aecis is using these tactics to vilify me. Aecis is welcome to his opinion but to change the whole dating system against the Wikipedia rules to a less common system despite that evry encyclopedia I have sen uses BC and AD is a radical thing to do! I have not even attempted to change articles that were started using the remote BCE and CE dating. Religion has nothing to do with my being pro-life. Before I was a practicing Catholic I was pro-life it is an issue that I am very concerned about. This should not make me a monster. I guess because I am Christian is the real problem for some Wikipedians. Since all this stuff has occured another person has implied that I am User:Chooserrr because we have "disturbing similarities" and is asking for this to be checked out. The KGB is still active I guess! I have done nothing wrong and I'm tired of this deliberate smear campaign. As far as I know it is okay to let people know about a vote. Why are some people so afraid of people voting? Dwain 06:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rest assured, I have not started a campaign against you, nor do I intend to do so. You shouldn't be investigated for informing people of this cfd. You should be investigated for spamming a large amount of carefully selected users with one-sided information (telling them that the pro-life celebrities category is up for deletion and omitting the pro-choice celebrities category that is up for deletion with it), hoping that they will influence the outcome of the vote to suit your religious pov's. In doing this, you are bending wikipedia content (what is kept and what is deleted) to suit your religious convictions. I'm more than willing to discuss the BC/BCE/AD/CE issue, but this is not the place, since that issue is not related to this cfd or the afd for gay rights in Iraq. Aecis ^praatpaal 09:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this user doesn't realize that if one votes on one category they are also voting for the other category. Why this user shouldn't realize this when he is the one who put these categories up for deletion is beyond me. How can I be putting my religious POV into this I voted to keep both the pro-choice and pro-life categories? Which religious POV is this user accusing me of? How is letting Wikipedias with a Catholic category tag know that a category is up for deletion considered anything then what it was giving people information of something I thought they might be interested in? My actions were not malicious I told no-one how to vote. Many Catholics are pro-choice, in fact, these Catholics may also be interested in voting on these categories. I am wholly offended that my religion is being dragged into all these debates concerning me. I have done nothing wrong, I had no idea how any of the people I contacted would vote. Why is it wrong to alert people that a vote that they might be interested in is up for deletion? It's funny that this user is so afraid of people actually voting on these categories. The more people who vote the better! Why is this user so upset that people are actually voting on these two categories from both sides of the issue? It must say something! Peace and Merry Christmas to all!!!Dwain 03:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You claim you didn't tell anyone how to vote. What you do not mention is the one-sided notice you left on dozens of talk pages. You carefully selected the users you notified as "Pro-Life Wikipedians" or "Roman Catholic Wikipedians." You deliberately misrepresented the cfd by telling these users that "the abortion zealots don't want anyone to think that any celebrity is actually pro-life." This is an explicit request to stop "abortion zealots" from obscuring information, which is a request to vote to keep the categories. You told the last 20-odd users that you "think this is an interesting and worth while category. Afterall not all celebrities are pro-abortion," which is another request to vote to keep the category (although not as blatantly as the previous notice). You carefully selected and canvassed a group of users who you believed would vote your way. You "hijacked" the talk page system to create a coalition to keep the category. You deliberately misinformed the users of the cfd. You skewed the vote. There is informing users, and spamming. These users had no relation to either the nominated categories or the articles in them. You selected them as pro-lifers or Roman catholics. You selected them hoping they would change the outcome of the vote, and indeed they have. It's safe to say that without your notices, this cfd would have ended in an overwhelming consensus to delete. Chooserr did the same on two AfD's (Gay rights in Iraq and Student LifeNet), which shows that it's no isolated behaviour. I'm not afraid of voting at all, my beef is with your talk page spamming, with the notices you spammed and with the resulting vote skewing. For the rest, I would like to refer to the notice I left on WP:AN/I|WP:AN/I], because it says all I want to say. Aecis ^praatpaal 12:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These are valid categories. --Shanedidona 23:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• RENAME or DELETE, if this is a keep, it should be renamed "Anti-Abortion ..." because some of the people who oppose abortion support the death penalty, clearly not a pro-life stance. 132.205.44.134
• Comment - It occurs to me that Category:Pro-life activists and Category:Pro-choice activists are entirely appropriate, and should exist, regardless of whether we keep the two in question here. An activist is not necessarily a celebrity, and obviously, vice-versa. Once those categories exist, and expand to include those celebrities whose stances on the issue play a role in their celebrity status, then it will make much more sense to bring these categories for deletion, on grounds of their being redundant, if they turn out to be so. At this point, they're really not. (Not that lack of redundancy alone is sufficient reason to exist...) -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. People who are activists for one side or the other have clearly defined views and their activism makes the personal opinion noteworthy. Durova 04:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Most of the articles with these category tags do not make any mention whatsoever of the subject's stance on the issue, thus they lack sources, thus they violate
  WP:NOR. Either find an appropriate source that clearly states each subject's view on the issue, or delete the categories. —Slicing (talk) 07:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Neutral on the issue of deletion, but rename to "anti-abortion". I think that the NPOV policy forbids repeating propaganda terms without a minimal critical distance -- not to mention clarity. Rama 06:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, with prejudice A bunch of people whose only commonalities are a) they're famous, b) they have a similiar opinion on one specific political issue, unrelated to why they're famous. Looks like a back-door way to sneak in what amounts to celebrity endorsements. --Calton | Talk 14:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per most of the above delete votes. "Interesting to someone" does not always mean "encyclopedic". Promotes the attitude that a person's stance on abortion is always one of the most important things about them. I agree with the suggestion of Aecis and others to create activist categories instead. FreplySpang (talk) 14:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete as has been said already, activist or lobbyist categories would be fine. JPD (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category:Pro-life celebrities and Category:Pro-choice celebrities, maybe with adding a short explanation in the first one (for example: "Category listing 'anti-abortionists' celebrities", or anything else). Everybody knows that "pro-life" does not mean "person who hates death penalty" but "person who hates abortion". Using "activists" would be bad, because a person may be a supporter of one of these ideologies without being an activist. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 18:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as per nom. Unless they're also activists, I don't see how their politicial stances are notable simply because they're celebrities. Also agree with GTBacchus about the need for categories for activists, regardless of the outcome of this. --Mairi 19:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until an appropriate merge category is created. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, inherent POV, trivia, not relevant to most people in the cat, and "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are euphemisms. Radiant_>|< 21:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify. Are we to have pro/anti categories for every issue in the world and every group of people? Arniep 00:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Since Wikipedia voted to delete the equivalent list

  WP:CSD. Do you have any suggestion for how to handle this in the event that your wish to listify is carried out? Jdavidb (talk • contribs

  )

• Delete. It's beyond trivial to categorize every person by their own irrelevant preferences and characteristics. Knowing when and where they live(d) is necessary for context; knowing their political affilation is only important if the person is a politician, activist, or the like. -Sean Curtin 05:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. From
  Wikipedia:Categorization of people: Try to limit the number of categories to what is most essential about this person, something in the vein of: "give me 4 or 5 words that best characterize this person.". This is at best an incidental factoid about the people in these categories. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment for the people who voted delete above and cited mere opinion and verifiability as problems, would you have a problem with self-identified pro-life celebrity-activists and self-identified pro-choice celebrity-activists as categories? Does that cure the problem? patsw 06:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone already suggested

Sachabrunel 20:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

I have no problem with a category for people notable for their support for or opposition to either side of the abortion debate. I have a problem with a category linking notable people to either side of the debate if those notable people are not notable for their position on abortion. In the Category:Pro-choice celebrities, I've found only two people who can with some reason be categorized for their position on abortion: Arnold Schwarzenegger (who belongs in Category:Pro-choice politicians) and Jane Fonda, and I'm not 100% sure on the latter. How Christina Aguilera, Jennifer Aniston, Lance Armstrong, Fran Drescher and Kirsten Dunst (to name but a few) feel about abortion is irrelevant. There are a bit more relevant entries in Category:Pro-life celebrities, but e.g. Maya Angelou, James Caviezel, Mia Farrow Nick Lachey and Dolores O'Riordan are not among them. What I'm basically saying is that it's irrelevant how celebrities feel about abortion. They are not notable for it, and if they were, they shouldn't be in a celebrities category, but in an activists category. I believe self-identified pro-life celebrity-activists and self-identified pro-choice celebrity-activists are way too long and clumsy for category names, and they leave the celebrity issue. As I suggested in my nomination: if they are notable for their views on abortion, put them in Category:Pro-choice/pro-life activists. If they are not, don't categorize them on their views on abortion. Aecis ^praatpaal 21:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We can improve them and make up some standards for who to include, but there is no reason to delete these. NoSeptember ^talk 16:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and Cleanup to "(whatever) activists". Retain only the ones who are notable for promoting one view or another, and delete those who merely once or few times in their life stated their opinion on the subject. Duja 13:37, 20 December 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.

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 K1Bond007 21:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category is a confusing cross-over of other horse categories and these articles are well served by Category:Horse health which they are all within. Malcolm Morley 22:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nomination Malcolm Morley 07:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as requested. Osomec 14:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --- per nom. Category clutter. 209.202.119.248 15:42, 18 December 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.

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 K1Bond007 21:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, replaced by Category:Anime and manga magazines. —Philip N.✉ 21:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Arniep 00:10, 18 December 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.

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 Keep K1Bond007 04:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one article in this category, which would fit better in the parent category Category:Prisoners which will soon be merged into Category:Prisoners and detainees. NoSeptember ^talk 21:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Give the new category a couple of months to populate. Death row inmates merit special attention and should probably be a subcategory of Category:Prisoners.
• Keep, certainly distinct and important from the regular prison population. Plenty of potential entries. -- SCZenz 22:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but Rename to
  siafu 23:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, "condemned prisoner" is an oxymoron. R adiant_>|< 21:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No it isn't. It means condemned to death. Osomec 14:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm really confused now. Isn't this redundant with Category:Death row prisoners...? -- SCZenz
• Merge Category:Condemned Prisoners and Category:Death row prisoners to Category:People condemned to capital punishment, or something to that extent. Condemned is too vague (condemned to what?), while death row might not be obvious enough to non-native speakers. Aecis ^praatpaal 23:59, 19 December 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.

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 all K1Bond007 06:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:African history --> Category:History of Africa
• Category:Asian history --> Category:History of Asia
• Category:Central American history --> Category:History of Central America
• Category:North American history --> Category:History of North America
• Category:South American history --> Category:History of South America
• Rename all. Naming conventions are clear like water in Crystal Lake (Jason could tell us). Wiki-standard is "History of Foo". See: Category:History by country. - Darwinek 20:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. -- Ze miguel 21:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all CalJW 07:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. No argument.
  siafu 16:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was rename all. K1Bond007 06:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Alabama history --> Category:History of Alabama
• Category:Alaska history --> Category:History of Alaska
• Category:Arizona history --> Category:History of Arizona
• Category:Arkansas history --> Category:History of Arkansas
• Category:California history --> Category:History of California
• Category:Colorado history --> Category:History of Colorado
• Category:Connecticut history --> Category:History of Connecticut
• Category:Delaware history --> Category:History of Delaware
• Category:Florida history --> Category:History of Florida
• Category:Georgia (U.S. state) history --> Category:History of Georgia (U.S. state)
• Category:Hawaii history --> Category:History of Hawaii
• Category:Idaho history --> Category:History of Idaho
• Category:Illinois history --> Category:History of Illinois
• Category:Indiana history --> Category:History of Indiana
• Category:Iowa history --> Category:History of Iowa
• Category:Kansas history --> Category:History of Kansas
• Category:Kentucky history --> Category:History of Kentucky
• Category:Louisiana history --> Category:History of Louisiana
• Category:Maine history --> Category:History of Maine
• Category:Maryland history --> Category:History of Maryland
• Category:Massachusetts history --> Category:History of Massachusetts
• Category:Michigan history --> Category:History of Michigan
• Category:Minnesota history --> Category:History of Minnesota
• Category:Mississippi history --> Category:History of Mississippi
• Category:Missouri history --> Category:History of Missouri
• Category:Montana history --> Category:History of Montana
• Category:Nebraska history --> Category:History of Nebraska
• Category:Nevada history --> Category:History of Nevada
• Category:New Hampshire history --> Category:History of New Hampshire
• Category:New Jersey history --> Category:History of New Jersey
• Category:New Mexico history --> Category:History of New Mexico
• Category:New York history --> Category:History of New York
• Category:North Carolina history --> Category:History of North Carolina
• Category:North Dakota history --> Category:History of North Dakota
• Category:Ohio history --> Category:History of Ohio
• Category:Oklahoma history --> Category:History of Oklahoma
• Category:Oregon history --> Category:History of Oregon
• Category:Pennsylvania history --> Category:History of Pennsylvania
• Category:Rhode Island history --> Category:History of Rhode Island
• Category:South Carolina history --> Category:History of South Carolina
• Category:South Dakota history --> Category:History of South Dakota
• Category:Tennessee history --> Category:History of Tennessee
• Category:Texas history --> Category:History of Texas
• Category:Utah history --> Category:History of Utah
• Category:Vermont history --> Category:History of Vermont
• Category:Virginia history --> Category:History of Virginia
• Category:Washington history --> Category:History of Washington
• Category:West Virginia history --> Category:History of West Virginia
• Category:Wisconsin history --> Category:History of Wisconsin
• Category:Wyoming history --> Category:History of Wyoming
• Rename all. Naming conventions are clear like water in Crystal Lake (Jason could tell us). Wiki-standard is "History of Foo". See: Category:History by country. - Darwinek 20:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. -- Ze miguel 20:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all Rhollenton 01:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. No argument.
  siafu 16:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

--Bkwillwm 03:57, 17 December 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.

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 Keep (no merge/rename) K1Bond007 04:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The two categories are really synonymous in my opinion and all four of the subcategories of Labor organizers use "leaders" in their name. No real preference on may part as to which name is preferable, but the subcats would make a merge in this direction easier to do. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. While the subcats may use "leaders", many of the articles contained in
  siafu 20:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment This area is quite an unfortunate mess due to differences in terminology in different English speaking countries. There is also Category:Trade unionists which has several subcategories. Could they not all be merged into category:Labor and trade unionists with subcategories named either Category Fooian labor unionists or Category:Fooian trade unionists? I don't know if the term "Labor unionists" is much used, but the word "unionist" gets over the problem which has caused this nomination. CalJW 07:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not only does unionist deal with the problem in this nomination, but "Labor and trade" or "Trade and labor" manages to encompass both American and Commonwealth usage (labor, being part of the American term, should be without the u). I think this is a much better proposal. If unionist is unsatisfactory, another common term is "labor official", but I have no idea if that would translate well as "trade official".
    siafu 23:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Rename to Category:Trade union organizers. 'Labor' is an Americanism to be avoided, and many countries have a Labour or Labor Party with which this could be confused. David | Talk 13:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't trade union a greatbritainism? I'm saying this because we have had a similar discussion over at
    WikiProject Stub sorting/proposals about a possible {{labor-bio-stub}}, so any decision here could affect that discussion as well. Aecis ^praatpaal 13:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Which is why that particular stub ended up being created as {{
      labour-activist-stub}}. I came across this duplication while searching out the appropriate non-stub parent of the stub category. Caerwine Caerwhine 16:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • anyway if it was going to be changed to "trade union" it would need to be organisers. BL kiss the lizard 23:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not so. "-ize" is just as acceptable in British English as "-ise", and is in fact preferred by the Oxford University Press in its style guide. David | Talk 18:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Labor leaders could be confused with leaders of Labour parties. Changing to "Trade union leaders" would exclude those activists who weren't union leaders.
  • Actually the term 'leader' is a general one, and not to be confused with the General Secretary of the Union. David | Talk 18:37, 17 December 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.

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. K1Bond007 06:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category is completely and utterly useless. Who is it supposed to be for? I'm sure that whoever would want to enter their name here, could do so comfortably in one of our other user categories. Actually, it was created as a joke by a user and then placed the category on a different user's userpage (vandalism). It was not created by it's only member (if he's still there), it was created by someone else to mock him. Izehar (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If someone in the future wants this category for themselves it can be recreated. Currently no User is in the category except for one who was included without permission. Alexander 007 19:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Potential for misuse. -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 21:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- serves no useful purpose. - Longhair 22:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Vizcarra 00:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Adz 03:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nonsense.
  siafu 16:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Do not feed the trolls. Durova 21:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy, serves no purpose but to deprecate its subject. Radiant_>|< 21:37, 17 December 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.

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 K1Bond007 21:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from how it was used (in the

• Delete. No argument.
  siafu 18:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. For reasons given. -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 21:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Herostratus 12:42, 21 December 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.

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 (as last time) --Kbdank71 15:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Action agreed at CfD a long time ago, seemed to slip through the net... [1]) -

• Speedy rename.Arniep 00:11, 18 December 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.

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 to delete (so keep) K1Bond007 21:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from being entirely about attacking (ancient) greek religion, it is factually inaccurate. Most of the deities involved had relationships with individuals of the same age, or with youths. Some even had relationships with people who were older. See also Pederasty. --Victim of signature fascism 16:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -as above, plus POV and using inappropriate language. --
  Sachabrunel 17:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Are you asserting that 'pederastic' or 'deities' is inappropriate? And where's the POV? -Seth Mahoney 02:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The word 'pederastic' is inappropriate. You may as well say 'paedophile'. Applying such emotive and judgemental labels to fictional characters is both inapproprate and POV. This is the same argument as the 'Mohammed was a paedophile' slander. --
      Sachabrunel 15:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • "Pederastic" is a standard academic term. Next we'll be told that the word "homosexual" is "POV". And the Mohammed analogy is false and inappropriate. "Pedophile" was not a term either current with or employed by 7th c. Arabs, and child marriage was universal. "Pederasty," however, was a privileged cultural feature of those who dreamt up many of these deities. And it has now become a generic term, so it is employable outside the Greek arena, just like "homosexual" can be used of the Mayas or the penguins. Haiduc 23:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument.
  siafu 17:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The contention above is incorrect on all counts. Description of the use to which these deities were put in Greek religion is supported by all mythographers who have treated this topic (see Graves, Bouffiere, Sergent, Calimach). The fact the some of these deities had other relationships is irrelevant, deities had many aspects and to claim one aspect is not to deny the others, to those familiar with Greek religion. The fact that some were the younger and others the older partners in pederastic myths makes them equally pederastic (it takes two to tango). This is not an attack, not meant as an attack, and any such claim needs to show in what way this is so. Haiduc 20:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Same reasons as Haiduc. --
  Samuel Wantman 20:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Haiduc. Ashibaka tock 23:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Haiduc. --Vizcarra 00:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Irrelevant and nonsensical. Soltak | Talk 00:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not more of these. Rhollenton 02:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per haiduc. Also, I'm not sure that asserting that some ancient Greek dieties had sex with youths counts as an attack. -Seth Mahoney 02:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm just waiting around to see what happens when one of you has the bollocks to put
  Mohammad on the list. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Well, Mohammad is a prophet, not a deity, so he shouldn't be in this category... Aecis ^praatpaal 14:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, you cannot meaningfully combine present-day moral values and legal concepts in conjuction with ancient-age mythology. Radiant_>|< 21:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am not sure this is the most useful category for classifying Greek deities, but it is plain incorrect to state that it is combining a "present-day" moral value or legal concept with ancient mythology. Relationships between adolescent boys and adult men played a significant role in Ancient Greek culture - see Pederasty in ancient Greece - and this is reflected in Greek mythology. In this context, contrary to the comment above, pederasty is in no way synonymous with paedophilia. Valiantis 02:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per arguments above. Jonathunder 17:06, 26 December 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.

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 K1Bond007 21:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The current category is wrongly named, and not explicit enough: there is a parent Category:American prisoners and detainees which covers normal prisoners, and there is an article Extrajudicial prisoners of the United States ready to use as the main article of the category. Ze miguel 16:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename -this sounds fair enough, could cause confusion otherwise. --
  Sachabrunel 16:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename to match article naming.
  siafu 17:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 Keep K1Bond007 21:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(grammar) Our Phellap 22:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Objection It is based on the Vale of Glamorgan local authority rather than the geographical feature and is therefore correct. Rhollenton 01:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm confused, which version are you saying is the correct one?
      siafu 17:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • The existing one. The principal area called Vale of Glamorgan was only created in 1996, and the term also applies to a geographical feature (a vale being a wide valley). Rhollenton 02:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Rhollenton.
  siafu 02:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• NOTE: Objection noted, moved from speedy. --Kbdank71 16:00, 15 December 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.

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. K1Bond007 06:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Was "rename to Category:Deadbeat dads" but is now just a simple delete.

because I am sure that when User: Pedant made this cateogory, she planned to detect and list ALL such fathers who have failed to pay their ex-wives all of their scheduled child support, not just Rusty Harding . -- Emact 00:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • comment. Rusty Harding isn't a deadbeat dad. He's "Deadbeat dad". It's a pseudonym used in art projects. it doesn't really need a category, either. Grutness...wha? 02:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Texas garnishment appeals decision for the delinquent support is a real court case and seems to have set some minor precedent. I moved some of the info on the Glenn page to the Rusty Harding page for clarity. -- Fplay 10:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe
        Deadbeat dad
        is a common term, and that the category is intended to include references to the term 'deadbeat dad' rather than a mere list of deadbeat dads, I've emailed Pedant, whose email is bouncing, he may be on a film shoot. I suggest keeping the category as-is and add to it, as I am quite certain Pedant's intent was not to single out Mr. Harding (or Englert, whichever it really is now), but rather to corral references to the legal concept of 'deadbeat parents'. I oppose the change to deadbeat dads, as that category would probably encourage a list of nonpaying parents, which would be of less encyclopedic value as an category related to family law. Grutness, do you have a reference for the "uses "Deadbeat dad" as a pseudonym in art projects" statement? I actually own a piece of 'Glenn art' and would be interested in finding out more about that... do you mean that Glenn uses "Deadbeat dad" as a pseudonym? or Rusty Harding? or that Glenn has made art projects with names like 'Deadbeat dad'?
        • It has already been put under the "family law" category. -- Fplay 04:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection If the category was created with the intention that Emact supposes above then it's a very emotive term and not suitable as a category name. Valiantis 14:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that is what the concept is "most commonly known as". It is used by politicians. It is not as if people refer to it the "D" word or something. Any other label would be much longer. -- Fplay 04:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are displaying a (North American??) bias here. This term is not commonly used in the UK. In any case, common usage doesn't miraculously override issues of POV. Valiantis 14:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had assumed, from the way the Rusty Harding article was originally written, that it was used as a pseudonym, but I've found no other evidence for it, and the way the article has been rewritten suggests otherwise. Mind you, given that it would be impossible to keep this category NPOV, I wouldn't really be happy to see it remain under wither the single or plural name. Grutness...wha? 05:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE: Objection noted, moved from speedy. --Kbdank71 15:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Grutness, and agree with Valiantis about naming issue. The article
  siafu 17:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Categories should not use pejorative terminology. -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 22:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's an Americanism never used outside the USA. David | Talk 23:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, perjorative. Ashibaka tock 23:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV. --Vizcarra 00:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV. — Eoghanacht ^talk 15:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Abandon ship Heck, I know when to give up. I already created a new category: Category:Child support recidivists. Let the witch hunt being... -- Fplay 16:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'll give you credit for coming up with a more encyclopedic title; however, based on previous comments, I think you're opening up a proverbial can of worms! -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 17:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I just opened up a can of REAL worms with my changes to Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. -- Fplay 17:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Highly POV. Get rid of it. - Longhair 21:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV. Durova 21:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --- highly inappropriate, and just begging to be used to for vandalism. 209.202.119.248 15:44, 18 December 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.

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 television films K1Bond007 22:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Category:Television films Ze miguel 14:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was under the impression that "film" was the preferred term rather than "movie" for all cinema-related cats. If this is correct, then Category:Television movies should be merged into Category:Television films Valiantis 14:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I updated the proposal. -- Ze miguel 14:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Television films and delete Category:Television movies. The former is more concise and is more encyclopedic. -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 22:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--The Category:Television movies is well established while the Category:Television films has 2 entries. A tv show isn't considered cinema or film. I don't know any actor that says "I'm going to be in a Television Film" Troy34 01:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I don't have strong feelings about this (as long as only one category is kept), Category:Film subcategories overwhelmingly use film, and it would be nice to have something consistent. How about Category:Telefilms ? -- Ze miguel 13:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Television movie" is an Americanism. In other parts of the world, one would say "television film". I don't have a strong linguisto-nationalistic preference for "film" over "movie", but it is the established term for WP cats and should therefore be used consistently. In any case, what is released as a TV film in one country may be released cinematically in another - Spielberg's Duel is an example - so one cannot categorically state "a tv show isn't considered cinema or film". Valiantis 14:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was mainly going by Wikipedia when i made my choice for
        television movie over television film. As you can see if you click the links in the previous sentence, "television film" redirects to "television moive", so if you want to go with what is consistant with Wikipedia... the choice is clear.Troy34 22:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • The
          movie redirects to film and the parent cat of Category:Television movies is Category:Films by type Valiantis 01:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • To call it a "US bias" is wrong. Here are some links to show you "movie" is an international term: England 1 & 2; Canada 1 & 2; Ireland 1 & 2; Australia 1 & 2. As you can see, both terms are used. I'm not particular as to which one we use and I agree with you that we should keep it consistent. If the German, French and Dutch call them telefilms, let those wikipedia language sites call them that. BUT, I personally take offence to your stereotyping me as pushing a "US bias" and I have shown you evidence to the contrary, however if you want a political discussion, we should take it elsewhere.Troy34 17:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • You appear to be very easily offended. I didn't state you were "pushing" bias. I said the article you refer to has systemic US bias and is therefore not the most useful resource for determining the correct title for the cat. TV movie is indeed used in the UK - however, it is generally used to refer to American TV movies. Films made for television from elsewhere in the world are generally referred to as television films. Film is the preferred term for film/movie cats on WP including the parebnt cat of Category:Television movies. Valiantis 14:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Actually it's very hard to offend me. My only point was that the term "movie" was widely used around the world, and in my research was even coined in England circa 1896. The links were to show you that it was not an "Americanism" or "US Bias". However, as I said before, it matters not to me which we use. My original argument was that "television films" had only 2 entries and to delete the category that had more entries was not preferred. But I also believe in consistency, so if film is more widely used then go with that. Troy34 16:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and merge Category:Television films to this category. Per Troy34. --Vizcarra 01:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Valiantis.
  siafu 16:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and merge Category:Television films to this category, TV movie is the commonly used term, I've never heard the phrase TV film. Arniep 00:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3,550,000 hits for "TV film" on Google, 2,850,000 for "TV movie". I don't claim that this is decisive (quite a few of these appear to be mishits along the lines of "TV/Film/Radio") but I think it demonstrates that both terms are commonly used. Valiantis 01:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that result is relevant, most of the results seem to be referring to films on TV (that originally had a cinematic release). Another term that is used is "made for tv". Arniep 17:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Google posting was not to indicate the relative distribution of both terms (I acknowledged in my original comment that many of the "TV film" hits were mishits). It was to demonstrate that such a term exists - as it does (which can be confirmed by checking a number of the articles Google points to). This was to counter your point that you had never heard the term TV film. Valiantis 14:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • if it was not relevant to the debate on this category why post it? Arniep 17:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • In my previous answer I didn't say "it was not relevant to the debate" - please desist from putting words into my mouth. I said it "was not to indicate the relative distribution of the two terms" but "to demonstrate that such a term exists" (widely). I said in my intial comment that I personally doubted the distribution of the terms was as per Google, so your first response was unnecessary as you were pointing out something I had already acknowledged. My argument is not that "TV film" is more common than "TV movie"; it is that "film" is the preferred term for all film-related cats and as the term "television film" exists and is widely used (addressing your point that you had never heard the phrase), there is no good reason not to prefer Category:Television films. Is that clear enough? Valiantis 14:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Television films" may be a phrase which is used but it is not generally used in the same context as "Television movies". It is used to describe any films shown on television that may or may not have had a cinematic release, not to describe a film or movie that was made for television only which is what the phrase "Television movie" is generally used for. Arniep 17:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please supply evidence for the assertion that "television film" is only "used to describe any films shown on television". The fact that you haven't heard the term as a synonym for TV movie is not evidence of its non-existence. As evidence for its existence as a synonym for TV movie I offer the evidence here that
              Golden Globes and various other awards bodies big and small all give or have previously given a specific award for Best TV film Valiantis 14:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
              ]
• Merge and delete. The main article is "film", not "movie", and neither term is overwhelmingly more common overall when discussing telefilms. -Sean Curtin 05:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete. We're arguing this like it's a political debate on abortion. Who cares anymore.Troy34 21:01, 21 December 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.

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 -- Rick Block (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is better handled through a list, and one already exists at

• Delete. The list, combined with
  siafu 17:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, rename to Category:Eaton family, populate and add to Category:Families. --Vizcarra 00:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --- Category clutter. I hate it when a relatively small category is subcategorized for the sake of creating subcategories, so that I have to click through to several pages to see the same information I should have been able to see on one page. Huge pet peeve. 209.202.119.248 15:47, 18 December 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.

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 -- Rick Block (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty and redundant with Category:User Wikipedia/RC patrollers Ze miguel 10:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No argument.
  siafu 17:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Delete. Arniep 00:16, 18 December 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.

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 -- Rick Block (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

YOUR VOTE IS A SPIT INTO THE MEMORY OF VICTIMS OF SOVIET REPRESSIONS. For millions of deaths it was not POV. I will not allow you to destroy this work. Why don't you go and fight lists of sexual slang and pornography actress instead? Shame on you all. mikka (t) 08:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inherently POV category. -

• Delete per nom. -- Ze miguel 11:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Admittedly POV, but more vague than anything else.
  siafu 17:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Doesn't make sense for a category name, and the underlying theme is POV. -Seth Mahoney 02:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Already categories related to Cheka, NKVD, KGB, etc. 172 02:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename The category is absolutely essential, in that there was a complex of control structures that worked together, such as the psychiatric hospitals, the Siberian gulag, etc. They were mechanism of dissent suppression, thought control, and speech control. How about "Soviet dissent control and suppression organizations"? I would split it up into two categories, one for the people and another for the organizations. Haiduc 03:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We already have Category:Soviet and Russian intelligence agencies for the organizations, the people might be categorized in "Category:Soviet and Russian intelligence people OR operatives OR biographies". Aecis ^praatpaal 16:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Surely we can allow some truisms. The GULAG was not an intelligence agency or a person. Sumahoy 13:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The GULAG category and its siblings can become subcategories of Category:Soviet political repressions. Aecis ^praatpaal 00:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to mention the POV issues. Use the given names and allow readers to come to their own conclusions. 172 00:36, 20 December 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.

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 -- Rick Block (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we go down the unlikely route of having articles on individual hat-tricks, this category seems intended to include bowlers who have taken hat-tricks. JPD (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nominator. CalJW 10:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Sam Vimes 11:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. I wrote the thing, and that is fine. I was thinking prior to actually writing the category, that perhaps that "hat-trick takers" may appear cumbersome, but seeing as you guys don't, then that is fine with me. Blnguyen 04:03, 16 December 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.

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 -- Rick Block (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The correct legal term appears to be Capital punishment, which is the main article of the category. Ze miguel 09:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nominator. CalJW 10:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. David | Talk 17:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument.
  siafu 17:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename. Death penalty is too controversial for a category name. -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 22:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename A
  Google test for the exact phrase "death penalty" but excluding the exact phrase "capital punishment" and "Wikipedia" (in order to avoid results from Wikipedia and forks) gives 15,800,000 results, whereas a test for the exact phrase "capital punishment " but excluding the exact phrase "death penalty" and "Wikipedia" gives 2,120,000 results. The figures speak clearly! Izehar (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 to delete (so keep) K1Bond007 21:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be nothing but recreation of Category:Historical pederastic relationships, deleted after a CfD. Yes, I am expecting the creator of the category to again accuse me of homophobia. No, I am not homophobic, but that's not what this is about; this is about an inherently POV category that has already gone through a CfD (during which the creator practically promised to circumvent discussion and recreate category). This abuse of process should not be tolerated. Delete (speedy if a quick consensus develops). (Its subcategory, Category:Pederastic deities does not appear to suffer from the same infirmity and I will not seek to delete it, but someone else is free to propose it if he/she wants to.) It should be further noted that this category was created on the same day that the CfD on the predecessor category was closed. --Nlu (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 30 for discussion on the prior CfD. --Nlu (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete This is the third variant I believe. CalJW 09:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the second variant? --Nlu (talk) 12:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not "the third variant." I recently submitted two other (previously created) categories for deletion which were badly named. This is simply a category created employing the (valuable) feedback of the previous critique. Haiduc 12:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep User Nlu unfortunately continues to misrepresent facts.

1. The creator (myself) did not "promise to circumvent discussion." Not being all that familiar with the CfD process, I brought into the forum a suggestion to rename made by another editor, in order to not do anything against the rules or their spirit. Since there was no consensus on re-naming at that time I waited for the process to run its course. Then I consulted with the admin who deleted it and asked him for the best course to set matters aright, appeal or repair of the flaws revealed in the CfD process, and his opinion was to repair the flaws.
2. Flaw number one: the category was seen as badly named. Point conceded. The category was properly renamed.
3. Flaw number two: the category was seen as POV. Without debating further an arguable point, I used verbatim the definition of a modern sexologist in order to substantiate the generic use of the term to describe homosexual relationships between male youths and adults.

I will not engage in personal diatribe with anyone here, least of all my accuser, whose statements in the previous discussion indict him better than I ever could. I will say that if you wish to delete this category again you will first have to demonstrate why gathering together historical examples of the primary form of homosexual expression in history is POV. Rather than deleting this category, two more categories need to be created, one for Category:Androphilic lovers and another Category:Gender variant lovers so that all three forms of homosexual expression can be covered. And I certainly hope that the rest of this discussion will keep to the standards of a discussion on the history of sexuality, rather than the uninformed outbursts of the last discussion. Haiduc 12:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The category name is now even more POV than the previous incarnation. I am convinced that you will never grasp the idea of NPOV with regard to these matters. (Specifically, the use of the word "lovers" is POV.) --Nlu (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The term "pederast" is clearly pejorative in common usage, and the term "lovers" is rather POV as well (and quite vague). Identifying individuals for categorization is, however, better than "relationships" since the number of articles on relationships is quite small.
  siafu 17:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • It is not pejorative in academic usage. The fact that this is not a popular subject is no excuse to delete the information. The contention that "lover" is POV is not intuitively obvious. Why do you say that? Haiduc 20:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per
      siafu 20:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Using the same logic, I arrive at opposite conclusions. I agree that common names are preferable over jargon, which is why I rejected "Age-structured homosexual partners" which is a more technical, if less aesthetic, term. So it was the logic of seeking the simplest term that determined the choice of "Pederastic". As for the pejorative use of the term, that is simply one of many uses. The term is in wide academic use with no suggestion whatsoever of deprecation. As an analog, take Fascist. It is ceratainly a term of abuse. At the same time it is a neutral description of a political party, or an attitude. We may not like fascism very much, but that is not sufficient to make it POV. It is the context that determines the use. If you do not like "lovers" and taking into consideration that not all such relations are of a sexual nature (though they are all of an erotic nature) what would you suggest? Haiduc 23:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you're looking for a suggestion, then I would suggest that instead of repeating an action that has failed before, you take the matter over to
          siafu 01:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Thank you for the lead, I was not aware of their existence (having worked mostly in the homosexual history field so far). That being said, I do not see this effort as "repeating an action failed before" but rather the offspring of the previous debate, incorporating whatever suggestions there were that could be incorporated. As it is becoming obvious, there is discomfort with anything related to "pederasty" because of its use on the street, but I do not think we need to indulge that - it is a projection, and out of place in academic discussion. If some (and I do not mean you) are uncomfortable with the pederasty of the ancients perhaps they should leave the topic to those who can be objective about it. I am not inventing pederasty here, nor am I promoting it. I am simply reporting it, after the fact. Despite what others may think, and despite some fulsome innuendo, I have no opinion on the value of pederastic relationships as a class. It is a meaningless question. Indeed, what is interesting is to see such relationships side by side and draw your own conclusions. So, challenge the examples, if you have an argument, but how can you deny the existence of a whole class of relationships?! Haiduc 02:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm fairly certain that there isn't anyone here denying the existence of pederasty. I would, however, point out that it would be much more appropriate to start by making
              siafu 02:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
              ]
• Keep. Useful and academically studied, the category is legitimate. If the name is objectionable, suggest a rename. Having a name that is POV (if that is the case) is reason for a RENAME, and not a DELETE. If articles are being incorrectly added, they should be removed. Neither of these issues makes the category itself illegitimate. --
  Samuel Wantman 20:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, the reason why many voted for the deletion of Category:Historical pederastic relationships, was that it was "badly named". As uncomfortable as it is this is a valid topic of importance to historians. Not only PG-rated topics should be discussed. --Vizcarra 23:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As far as I can tell all the issues with this category have been resolved. The only valid complaint now is that "pederasty" is too negative to be the name, but renaming to "notable age difference" or something is just weaselling around. Ashibaka tock 23:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Important concept. CDThieme 00:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This nonsense has gone on long enough. Consensus has been reached relative to pederastic categories on several occasions. While I have no desire to speculate relative to the creator's reasons for his fixation with the topic, I can unequivocally state that this and other related categories are irrelevant, unnecessary, and utterly useless. Soltak | Talk 00:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    Praeteritio is funny when you use it as a joke, but it has no place when you're making a serious accusation. Ashibaka tock 15:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep, but rename to avoid use of the term 'lovers', which is not only POV but unnecessarily restrictive. -Seth Mahoney 02:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would you (and others) make of "Pederastic partners"? Haiduc 02:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Lovers" does seem POV, for multiple reasons. Ashibaka tock 15:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Partners' avoids the POV, I think, but it is maybe still too restrictive. Then again, maybe the relationships I've got in mind aren't technically pederastic anyway. There has got to be a word that will work perfectly here - my brain is just way to fried to take a stab at it at the moment. -Seth Mahoney 08:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless it is restricted to historical figures as the inclusion of any contemporary people could be libelous. Rhollenton 02:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that is a reasonable concern, as long as they had not outed themselves, which would be fair game. Can we agree to this? Haiduc 03:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Including any person in a category which would libelous is already against policy and does not need to be agreed to. --
      Samuel Wantman 01:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Keep Not the greatest name (my doubts refer to "lovers" rather than "pederastic") but serviceable enough. The topic is entirely worthy of inclusion as a common-place form of relationship in former times. Valiantis 02:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This was a common cultural practice in some societies (notably Hellenic), and therefore does not merit inclusion, in the same way we would not have special categories for people following common Western cultural practices. Sarge Baldy 19:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if this category were named "Greek pederastic lovers" it would be of value since we do not have that much information on particular individuals and where we do it will be of interest to those researching this topic. However, the scope of possible entries ranges far beyond ancient Greece, even to places where it was rare or rarely documented, and the sum total can become a data base of such relationships all over the world, something unavailable anywhere at the present time. Haiduc 19:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I guess there's no pleasing some people. The facts are that there many articles about couples, predominantly historical, due to the social constructs of today, who were in homosexual relationships with a notable age difference. Those relationships are not going to go away. Now, it seems reasonable that there should be a category for these couples. It seems to me (but I might be wrong) that the issues result from a POV dispute over the name of the category. But that's no reason to delete the category; a discussion can be opened in a variety of places to try and come up with a name. I don't think that there can be any legitimate objection to the category itself; as I said earlier, you can't disagree with the facts. Those couples existed, and they were commonplace relationships of the time, for the most part. If Category:Historical Pederastic Relationships doesn't work as a name, and ditto with Category:Pederastic Lovers, is Pederastic the issue? I am hard-pressed to come up with another word to describe these relationships; they were pederastic, and the consensus seems to be that we should limit it to historical ones. I dunno, Category:Historical Man-Boy Homosexual Relationships just doesn't have that ring to it... I think the CfD discussion should be closed and a discussion for the name opened. That's my two cents (but looking back on what I've written, it's probably worth at least a nickel ;-) ). Sputnikcccp 02:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This category is not for "couples", it's for individuals. There are not many articles about couples.
    siafu 03:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • What I mean by couples is that there are two people in a relationship. The articles are all about individuals, but they are in the category because those individuals had younger male lovers. If they hadn't, they wouldn't be there. Sputnikcccp 20:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy Delete: This is not a wikipedia quality article, has little content, and is repulsive in its very nature. Therefore I vote it a speedy delete. Chooserr 08:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is not "an article", it's a category. More to the point, "repulsion" is clearly POV. For example, I find homophobia repulsive, but I still believe that WP should have articles (and where appropriate categories) about homophobia. Valiantis 14:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete simply on the principal of stare decisis. I neither know nor care about most of the arguments above. But if I understand aright, this is basically a recreation of a deleted category under a different name, and thus an automatic delete. I had a category deleted, too; you have to let those things go. Let the editor make it into a list. Herostratus 12:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • By this reasoning, any category initially rejected largely because it was improperly named cannot ever be submitted again under a corrected name, regardless of its merits. We might as well automate the system and be spared all this bother. Haiduc 12:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although I am not sure this is the best name, I don't see that it should be deleted. Jonathunder 17:07, 26 December 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.

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 keep -- Rick Block (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a "Musicians whose names begin with M" category. If start dividing them by powers or lack of, soon enough we'll have a ton of subcategories like "martial artists", "gadget users", etc. Its a bit excessive. -SA-

• Comment The parent certainly needs subdivision, and has many other subcategories, but I know little about the subject so I can't tell if this is a useful subcategory. CalJW 09:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd say this could be worthwhile but would like the opinion of an expert in the field. --
  Sachabrunel 15:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment There's a small chance I could pass as an expert in the field, as I wrote the Marvel Super Heroes Adventure Game. I think there's utility for dividing superheroes by comic company (already done) and by philosophical category (nonpowered, martial artists, whatever), but probably not both at the same time. It would probably be more useful for this to be a non-company-based category called "Nonsuperpowered superheroes" along the lines of Category:Superheroes without costumes. Just a thought, though.---Mike Selinker 16:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a good idea. --

Sachabrunel 16:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

I found this dialogue illuminating: Category_talk:Superheroes. Publisher isn't quite like nationality in the Category:Sportspeople world, but it's close. So I think it might be useful for this parent category to have the kind of "martial artist" subcategories, so if you don't know the publisher, you have some meaningful reference point.--Mike Selinker 16:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. From a superhero fan's point of view (I am not one), this is a crucial subcategory. --Vizcarra 00:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --- I am always very doubtful of the need for most subcategories, but having visited the main DC Comics category, I see that it has been subcategorized quite nicely. 209.202.119.248 15:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above. If category needs splitting, seems like a reasonable way to split. Herostratus 12:50, 21 December 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.

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 K1Bond007 06:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another one that should be renamed to remove the abbreviation. Sumahoy 01:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Sumahoy 01:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. CalJW 09:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument.
  siafu 18:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 K1Bond007 06:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Valleys of Foo standard, etc. jengod 01:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Sumahoy 01:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to standard form. CalJW 09:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument.
  siafu 18:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. I don't care much either way, but it seems to me that valleys are in a geographic place rather than belonging (of) to them. See Category:Valleys in the United Kingdom. — Eoghanacht ^talk 15:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and Rename also category:Valleys in the United Kingdom and category:Valleys in England to "Valleys of ..." form. (should be a speedy). - Darwinek 17:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. Snowfalcon 00:35, 24 December 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.

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 K1Bond007 06:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the bunch of categories that was nominated recently and almost the only one that didn't get changed. But the abbreviation is against policy and I don't think anyone voted to retain it, so I am renominating. This time I am suggesting that we use the same title as the article. Please, please, please don't stop it getting sorted with quibbles about the precise form this time guys. It can always be changed again later. For now how about we just make sure we lose the abbreviation (which looks worse now that most of the others have gone)? Sumahoy 00:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Sumahoy 00:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Mayumashu 02:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. CalJW 09:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. Valiantis 14:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match article title.
  siafu 18:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 Speedy delete (as empty category) --Nlu (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Category:Yacht clubs" (lowercase "c") already exists. This was a category set up as a redirect. My problem with that the category-that-is-a-reidrect shows up as a confusing Subcategory in our user interface. -- 07:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete CalJW 09:21, 15 December 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.