Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 23

< July 22	July 24 >

July 23[edit]

Category:Capcom heroes[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge ×Meegs 10:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Capcom heroes to Category:Capcom characters

Nominator's rationale: Merge - per strong consensus against "hero" categories and to make sure each entry is categorized by company. Otto4711 23:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support merger but perhaps try Category:Capcom protagonists first? CaveatLector^Talk 03:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent is against using any POV words like hero, villain, protagonist, antagonist and the like for fictional characters. The reasoning is that since characters' allegiances are not fixed assigning them to a role is problematic and could result in the same character being categorized in multiple such categories. Otto4711 13:32, 25 July 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Film based video games[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. The cat is empty, and as Pegship says, we have both Category:Films based on video games and Category:Video games based on films. ×Meegs 10:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category, already exists as Category:Video games based on films. Ebyabe 22:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Isn't there some sort of speedy delete rationale this fits? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - redundant category but something may be in the one that's not in the other. Otto4711 23:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. The second-mentioned category was created first, so the first is redundant. --Eliyak T·C 23:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already moved any that weren't in the one into the other, so the newer category is empty now. -Ebyabe 23:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As I dont think this is a repeat category. One is about films based on video games, such as Mortal Kombat (film) while the other is about the exact opposite; video games based on films, such as Jaws: Unleashed.(Animedude 21:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep as Animedude says, these are not the same thing. Video games ---> Film =! Films ---> Video Games. CaveatLector^Talk 03:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. There may be a category somewhere for films based on video games, but this is not it. This is a category for video games based on films, which is redundant. Xtifr _tälk 11:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have Category:Films based on video games and Category:Video games based on films, who could ask for anything more? <g> Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:31, 26 July 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Konami heroes[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Konami characters. ×Meegs 10:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Konami heroes to Category:Konami player characters

Nominator's rationale: Rename for the sake of neutrality. Lenin and McCarthy

Merge to Category:Konami characters. A cursory look through a few other video game by company categories doesn't indicate to me that we categorize characters based on player or non-player status; no reason I can see to start with this one. Otto4711 23:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested, but 'Konami protagonists' is probably better than 'player characters', alternatively the lack of the distinction at all as Otto suggests. CaveatLector^Talk 03:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent is strongly against using any POV words like hero, villain, protagonist, antagonist, etc. in categories for fictional characters. Otto4711 13:33, 25 July 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Distinguished Eagle Scouts[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus (here, or in the previous debate). The proposal to rename the cat to reduce ambiguity received very little attention, and should be reconsidered in the future. ×Meegs 11:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Distinguished Eagle Scouts to Category:Eagle Scouts

Nominator's rationale: Up Merge. As an award it is not a defining characteristic. If kept, it should be renamed to Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Eagle Scout award. There is no need to listify since these individuals are already listed in List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America). Vegaswikian 19:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Close for now~~(Other debate finished now) Both categories are still covered by an open nomination to delete, which may well succeed. This is premature. Johnbod 19:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acutally, it's a dead heat right now, that's "no consensus" where I come from.Rlevse 20:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this category is not being discussed in the other discussion and this discussion has been noted there. Vegaswikian 20:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

??? Both the categories you want to merge are nominated for deletion. You should not have altered the tag on the category, btw. Rlevse, dead heats tend to end in deletion closes at CfD. Johnbod 21:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A dead heat is not consensus so it can not be deleted based on the guidelines. If it is, then it would be recreated in deletion review. If you want, just close this discussion. It will be recreated when the other one is closed as no consensus. Vegaswikian 23:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several minority-won deletion decisions here have been upheld at deletion review. See Kdbank's comments there now on the "100 caps" discussion. Regardless of how the other discussion is going, we should not have two discussions open on the same two categories at the same time. Basic stuff. Johnbod 00:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not what people are notable for. Golfcam 22:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments on Category:Eagle Scouts; wasn't this nominated there, too? Carlossuarez46 22:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it was nominated there too. But it was being ignored in that discussion and I personally believe that there will be two different results for the two categories. Vegaswikian 05:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably meaning one will be deleted - in which case how do you merge the two? Oh well, let's wait and see. Johnbod 15:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the information but merge it with one of the other Eagle articles. Some people have that in their resume until they are old. (User:Blue Tie forgot to sign)
Keep; neutral on merge Note that both deletes above here were made whilst another nomination to delete was still open - as they had been made aware. We should not revisit the keep/delete issue so soon. Johnbod 19:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Please read Distinguished Eagle Scout Award to see the requirements. Per the rename proposal: recipients are known as "Distinguished Eagle Scouts." --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Distinguished Eagles are even more notable than Eagle Scouts and it is an ADULT award, so I don't understand this relisting at all. As a subset of Eagle Scouts, it makes sense to make it a subcat of the Eagle Scout cat.Rlevse 20:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rlevse --evrik ^(talk) 20:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Rlevse, also, I believe all of the recipients noted are also marked on the List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America).MBK004 21:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, thanks but not all DESAs are on the list. There are over 1200+ DESA recipients.Rlevse 02:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per pretty much all the keeps above.Sumoeagle179 02:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a difference between Eagle and Distinguished Eagle, and both are important achievements in a young adult's life, and the rank continues on into later life. - Crockspot 04:05, 27 July 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Terminator in popular culture[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. ×Meegs 11:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with little potential for expansion (I hope). Both of the articles are already in the broader "In popular culture" parent category and, quite frankly, ought to be deleted themselves. That being neither here nor there for this nomination, this category is still completely unnecessary and should be deleted. Otto4711 16:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Johnbod 16:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ditto the article. Mowsbury 18:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as all content is up for deletion itself. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 20:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete its a department of redundancy department kind of thing.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rape victims[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --bainer (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's notes
This was a complicated and charged debate involving a range of different arguments that were not necessarily easy to reconcile with one another.

The arguments in favour of deletion included:

verifiability issues with determining the category's contents
significant definitional issues (not just to do with differing legal definitions across jurisdictions, but to do with the scope of the category, viz whether the category should include self-identifying victims or anyone identified as a victim, whether the category should limit itself to victims as established in judicial proceedings or extend as far as alleged victims, and whether it should include living people or not)
biographies of living persons issues, not only relating to victims but to alleged perpetrators
that the category has no compelling encyclopaedic value (at least in category form; the possible alternative of a list does not seem to have been discussed to any significant extent)
that the category system, which is essentially a collection of labels, is simply not suited to presenting material of this complex nature, and that this is best left to article text.

Additionally, several editors referred to standards of journalistic ethics, primarily in relation to the definitional issue of the category's scope.

In terms of arguments in favour of keeping, almost the only argument offered was that the category is useful. Some other arguments invoked other difficult to maintain categories to suggest that this category should be kept despite its own difficluties. Several editors asked those people seeking to keep the article to ennumerate the benefits to the encyclopaedia of keeping the category, and little or nothing was offered in response.

The closest to a substantive response as to the value of the category was from Dekkappai:

"Don't people know about Women's studies, Gender studies, Criminology, Sex and the law? etc., etc.... Any number of other important areas of study investigate rape. Intentionally hiding this sort of classification certainly won't make the crime go away-- as some seem to imply, and it will certainly hinder this sort of research."

Similarly, DanielEng noted that:

"The current thinking of most rape advocacy groups is to encourage survivors to come forward and share their names and stories, with the idea of showing solidarity, support and making it clear that rape is a real issue that could happen to anyone."

However, Xtifr later said that:

"I don't think it's really a BLP issue, but I do think that it's not really a defining characteristic of many of these people. Rape is (unfortunately) not uncommon, and I think we may end up with a semi-random collection of people with little or nothing in common except one minor (from a historical perspective if not a personal one) incident in their lives."

It should be noted that the survivor's group lists that DanielEng linked to (example) are just that: lists. It should also be noted that it is certainly not the practice of such groups, or of people within those academic fields, to reduce a person who has been raped down to a mere label of "victim", which, as Xtifr and a number of others observed, is essentially the only thing that categories can do.

That there was virtually no agreement in this debate as to how to define the category's scope - even among those arguing to keep the category - weighs significantly in favour of deletion. Add to that the paucity of argument as to what benefits the category has to the encyclopaedia, the strong basis in policy of the arguments on biographies of living persons and verifiability issues, and that the problems identified in the debate are essentially inherent to the crude simplicity of the category system and thus unresolveable, the result was clearly in favour of deletion.

As a postscript, it appears that the development of a list or lists instead of this category was not considered in this debate, though, in my view, it should be considered in the future. --bainer (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Originally speedied by User:Zscout370 as a potential magnet for WP:BLP violations, after it was unilaterally depopulated by User:SqueakBox. The category's creator, User:Taprobanus, put a complaint on WP:ANI. SqueakBox had done this once before, and another admin (namely User:Pascal.Tesson) said it wasn't a speedy candidate and warned him. I tend to agree and therefore I have listed it here; No vote. ugen64 16:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am more than aware that it can be misused according to WP:BLP. Then why should we not tighten the criteria under which this can be used. This is an open source environment. Any category can be misused. Please look at Cat:Terrorism or even Cat:State terrorism. These are classic examples of controversial categories that can survive the temptation for misuse. To give in to theory that just because someone will misuse it we should never have it, means that we may not have controversial subject matter in Wikipedia at all. Wikipedia is only for earthworms and blueberry pies. Enough said, I will work on redefining the definition of the category so that it can be used properly. Thanks Taprobanus 16:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Rape has different meanings in different countries. A person convicted of rape in one country could be acquitted in another country even if the circumstances were exactly the same. Does that mean the victim was not raped? What about a person who self-identifies as a rape victim, who's case goes to trial and the trial results in an acquittal? Does that self-identified person stay in the list, or come off the list? It's a daft catagory, and it needs to go. Very many bad things will happen if it stays. Dan Beale 16:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like what bad things ? Thanks Taprobanus 16:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious BLP stuff about the accused and accusser, edit warring over a definition of rape, edit warring over whether certain people go on the list or not. Dan Beale 23:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the point is ?, I dont want to be flippant but isnt that the reality of an open source project like this?, to figure out what and what not belongs not just kind a build a fence around certain categories and say we are not going to deal with it because that is the limit of open source ?Taprobanus 15:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And so, whilst we're noodling about on Wikipedia trying to see who fits the cat, and making sure there's clear attributable verifiable sources for people-accused-of-rape there's people in the real world having to live what we're saying about them, on top of the media speculation. Do no harm should be an important part of wiki bios, and this cat doesn't help that. Dan Beale 00:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following that logic, we would need to get rid of all categories related to crimes, since all laws differ between countries. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does not follow. Rape is one of the most serious crimes in many countries - a person identifying as a rape victim might have identified a rapist. Is wiki liable for BLP stuff if we list the rape victim, especially before \ during trial? Dan Beale 23:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Applying a category comes from a judgment based on the material about the subject. If the differences between countries about rape are so vast, then sort the category for different countries or regions. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we're not discussing if the person who did the rape may or may not be convicted/acquitted of the crime, but whether the person who was the victim was raped. Seems a perfectly reasonable category to keep. Seems more of WP:IDONTLIKEIT than solid reasoning for it's deletion. Lugnuts 16:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we already have categories like Rapists, Criminals, etc. which present even more problems. PatGallacher 16:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete. no conceivable usefulness, severe problems with WP:BLP/privacy and verifiability. For the purposes of Wikipedia, someone is a rapist once legally convicted as one. Obviously, you can be a rape victim even if no-one is convicted for the crime, but without a legal verdict, this is simply not verifiable. At best, put up a giant notice that only individuals who have won a rape case (i.e., someone has been legally convicted as the rapist of this person), and who are on wikipedia because of that case may be listed. Case in point, serial killer Carl Panzram is listed as a rape victim. While I have no particular reason to doubt he was gang-raped at the age of 14 as the article says he claimed, this is simply not verifiable. dab (𒁳) 16:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please look at the caution regarding using this category Taprobanus 17:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if restricted to those people whose articles contain verifiable information about the rape. Honestly I'm not at all enamored of the various victim categories but as long as they exist I don't see any encyclopedic reason for excluding rape victims from the scheme. Otto4711 17:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please look at the caution regarding using this category Taprobanus 17:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I don't really see this add any value to the encyclopedia. [edit:] I'm going to emphazise my delete... This category seems to be attracting all kinds of perverts wanting to use it to "track rape victims"? Get rid of this category as soon as possible! --Edokter (Talk) 17:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this seems like a good way to track down potential BLP concerns, if useful for nothing else. Wily D 17:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment:Perverts ? that is a strong word to describe fellow wikipedians without evidence. Thanks Taprobanus 15:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too easy to abuse and of no value to encyclopedia. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 17:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please look at the caution regarding using this category Taprobanus 17:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "caustion"? JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I added to the body of the category-(Caution:So as not to violate WP:BLP requirements this category needs to used only for people who are deceased). Hence we will be able to assure no living person shall be affected by this category per WP:BLP. Such cautions and messages work very well in other controversial categories. Thanks Taprobanus 18:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ann says, for many years, that Bob raped her many times. Ann dies. Can you really put Ann on the list? Even if Bob has no convictions? Dan Beale 00:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think "verifiable" should be synonymous with "court conviction." Almost 60% of rapes go unreported; for rapes perpetrated against intimate partners and children that figure is even higher. Many victims go decades before they tell someone what happened. Does that mean the 60% of victims are not credible? We don't expect people who publicly claim they've been bullied or assaulted in other ways to always provide police proof, because much of the time it doesn't exist. We have articles about people with drug addictions who have never been arrested for their use. We list religious affiliations for people without expecting to see religious documents; instead we trust what they say in interviews. We take them at their word. Why should it be any different for survivors of sexual assault?DanielEng 02:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentIt's different because it's not just the survivor of sexual assault that possibly categorised, there's a possibility for someone accused of assault to be identified too. I guess I'm saying that if this catagory stays there's a bunch of other stuff that needs to happen: The information about any accused person needs to be very clearly attributed. I'm not convinced that's going to happen. Also, the thing about definition of rape differing hasn't been covered yet. Dan Beale 12:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The two are not mutually exclusive, though. I do agree with you that information about any identifiable person accused of rape needs to be very, very clearly attributed. We obviously can't say someone's a rapist if there's not been a conviction. That's the same for any other crime reported on Wiki, though. If we write that someone was murdered, we don't always have their killer's name there, do we? We're talking about the victim,. In the case of one well-known singer on Wiki, for instance, she was raped by an unknown assailant coming back to her apartment. She's come out about it and spoken about it publicly. Reporting these facts on Wiki does not implicate anyone else. And there's no reason she shouldn't be believed, any more than we'd question someone's claim of being bullied, being vegetarian or having a specific religion. DanielEng 19:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry to say it but non-famous person gets raped by another non-famous person = no-one knows; non-famous person gets raped by famous person = media frenzy. This cat could become a list of not-famous people who've been raped by famous people, even if the case doesn't get to court or there's no conviction. Perhaps i've got myself tied up in a Zen like confusion - the only accused person isn't convicted so there's no rapist, but does that mean there's no rape victim / rape survivor? And if the rape srvivor goes on a list, how does that reflect on the non-rapist? (BTW: You mention "killed" and "murdered"; are you aware of the very long threads about which word to use?) Dan Beale 01:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see what you're getting at, in a way. If I'm reading this right, I think you're concerned solely about cases where there's been a trial or accusation but no conviction. For instance if we were to list the alleged victim in the Duke attack as a rape victim, it's in a way a negative commentary on the lacrosse players even though they weren't convicted. Perhaps what that means, though, is that in cases where there are identifiable victim and perp, and a trial but no conviction, the situation will have to be examined closely to determine if the category should be used or another cat should be used. For instance I notice in the Virginia Rappe article, there is a full discussion of the situation (a possible but not conclusively proven rape) but none of the catgeories are used.

I don't think every case on Wiki falls into that model, though. What you're forgetting though is the thing I mentioned before, though: sometimes there is no named or suspected attacker, and in that case, there's nothing "reflecting back on the non-rapist" because there is no such entity. DanielEng 02:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - You're right about my main concern. This category doesn't include all rape victims, and will have problems including some rape victims because of BLP problems about the rapist, and possibly BLP problems about the victim (not all victims want to be identified, and I guess that's their right, should Wikipedia soapbox about de stigmatising and 'outing' rape survivors?), and then a woman some countries have odd definitions of rape. Some countries it's still legal for husbands to rape their wives, some countries have 'statutory rape' regarding sex with people under the age of consent, in some countries men cannot be raped (this was the case in the UK until 1997). Can women be rapists? Does rape only include non-consenting penetration of a penis into a vagina or anus? What about force into the mouth, or use of objects?

This isn't "people legally regarded as raped". We already have an adequate definition: Rape. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 18:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, the category has some flaws. There's a list of people who've been raped, but a whole bunch of them can't go the list because:

They famously accuse one person and there's no conviction (only about 5% of court cases result in conviction in the UK) thus there's BLP stuff about the accused
They were raped but do not wish to be identified as a rape victim, thus there's BLP stuff about the survivor. (Obviously some people won't care, or will want to be identified, but we have to recognise that others don't.)
They were raped but the law of their land doesn't recognise that assault as rape
They consented to sex but the law of their land doesn't recognise that consent
Most importantly, verifiability and media coverage means that either the victim or attacker is famous before the rape and the case gets a lot of coverage, and the vast majority of raped people don't get included.

I'm not sure the game is worth the candle - "A partial list of people who happen to have been raped" - the disadvantages are clear, I have no idea what the advantages are. Dan Beale 10:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All of those points could be addressed, though.

"Famously accuse one person and there's no conviction:": As said, this could be examined case by case to avoid BLP issues to the accuser.

"Raped but do not wish to be identified:" I don't think anyone would have a problem about leaving such persons out of the cat. As said before, we're not here to out people, and this would fall under the same protection as any other private information.

I don't think anyone would have a problem - Look at the edit warring that happens over things like conjoined twins, or compsers, or place of birth. If anything this is an argument for the cat; it'd make it easier to fond articles that need careful watching. Dan Beale 11:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"They were raped but the law does not recognize it as rape", "They consented..." "WHat is the definition of rape": In the case of a bio subject where any of these are issues, they can certainly be explored in detail in the article, as is done in Virginia Rappe. The World Health Organization and other global entities have tried to draw up clear definitions of rape, and one of those could be used in dubious cases. Another option might be to change the name of the category to "sexual assault victims," which would cover the entire spectrum without trying to whittle it down to one definition. In cases where there is no perpetrator named and no court case, and it's the victim's word alone, I don't think this matters. Nobody's going to ask a rape victim, outside of court, "could you tell us just how you were attacked, so we know if you were really raped?" If someone says they were raped, that's good enough.

I'd hate to see an edit warover an article where a women says she was raped but editors quibble over a definition. I guess I should stop BEANSing and let people deal with this stuff if it happens. Dan Beale 11:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"the vast majority of raped people don't get included..." True, but the vast majority of people in general aren't on Wikipedia. The ones in this cat are likely to be either a) notable people who have been raped and have been open about their experiences; b) cases in which there was a conviction and/or assault verified through forensic means and reported through the press. So I don't think this concern is valid.

As I mentioned in my comment to Squeakbox below, from a survivor/advocate view, a list of survivors/victims is important for several reasons, and such lists are used by several victims advocacy groups. DanielEng 16:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reword caution as manifestly improper; in the case of Linor Abargil, for example, she widely publicized the rape, and had the rapist convicted; it's a good part of her claim to notability. BLP requires (unless it's been reworded by the morals police again) that controversial statements about living persons be sourced. Categories already require support from the text of the article; what BLP adds to this is that the support be well-sourced. If the existence of the cat draws more eyes to check that this condition is met, so much the better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reword caution per Septentrionalis. I'm also taking the liberty of correcting Taprobanus's spelling in several places. Caustion is nothing ... I stared for the longest time at "people who are diseased" before figuring out what he must have meant... --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as troll material. Thi9s should nopt have been re-created aftyer its speedy and this debate should be on DRV. People are adding unsouirced claims of rape to this cat which is completely unacceptable. Are we here to write anh encyclopedia or stalk people? SqueakBox 19:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:This is what we should have done from day one, not de populating articles from a category and submitting it for speedy (twice) when clearly it does not qualify for such a process. What is wrong with asking for opinion from the wider community as an admin politely requested in your talk page a month ago? It is so that we can find consensus on these controversial issues. Further what part of WP:Stalk and WP:Troll does this category violate ? Anyway as I said in the ANI, I will abide by community consensus on this issue. I hope you will too. Thanks Taprobanus 19:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep It is an excellent catagory because we can track down people who have been raped and killed in many places. Take a look at the rape victims on the cat. Most of them have been raped and killed as part of a internal conflict in the country. Good place for possible research on rape victims (for example: Rape victims of Srilanka).No reason to bring BLP violation here as Taprobanus added the caution. also on a side note I would like to ask that for instance if a wikipedia article has a potential to be violated (take for example Gay celeberaties) does that go thru AFD ? I mean obviously people might call stright athletes gay in the article too. How about a categary about Category:Athletes and the sub cat about female/male athletes.... Someone can abuse that also. They can put a male into a female cat or vice versa. Though the last argument is based on othercrapexist it is based on the fact that we do not delete cats or articles based on potential to be abused. Why would we do that to this article? Watchdogb 19:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously the category needs to be carefully policed to ensure it won't be abused, but that holds true for many Wiki cats. If there is sourced information that the subject was raped, and the subject has gone public with it, I do not think it qualifies as a blp vio at all. Many rape survivors come forward with their stories in the hopes that they will be able to help others feel they are not alone. For instance, CNN's Larry King did an entire show with celebrity survivors of abuse. [1] DanielEng 21:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is a good category so long as it includes rape victims who are deceased/murdered. It shouldn't include living rape survivors, unless the person is a public figure and is unafraid of speaking about their incident. SqueakBox is using wikipedia to prove a point. He has called the maker of this category a troll - a description that is highly resented in wikpedia. His notion that we are stalking people with this category is laughable. Fighting for Justice 21:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Other editors may be interested in ongoing discussion at User talk:SqueakBox. --MatthewUND^(talk) 06:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it will clearly show you that he is on a crusade. His biggest reason for deleting the category is because it outs the person. What in the world does that mean? If we apply it to a person, who is dead and there is reliable sources stating they were raped, then we are outing nobody. It is only his opinion that it outs anybody. He is not basing that on any facts or scientific evidence. You can not out a person who is dead. His reasons basically amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Fighting for Justice 06:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the third paragraph of outing if you want to know what it means and dont already. Please dont assume you know my motives, IDONTLIKE has absolutely nothing to do with this. It certainly isnt just my opinion thta outing rape victims is a terrible thing to do, not as bad as raping them but not a lot better and certainly highly invasive. Some people seem to have a death wish for wikipedia but I am not one of them, SqueakBox 02:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Squeakbox, I don't think anyone here has an interest in harming or invading the privacy of rape survivors. I think you're mistaken when you believe that any identification of rape survivors is "outing" or hurting them. Outing can only occur if the information is secret. If the rape is something the subject wishes to keep confidential, of course it shouldn't be revealed. If it's publicly known, it's not outing. Not all rape survivors see their trauma as something to hide in a deep dark closet. I'd draw your attention to the fact that similar lists appear on websites that advocate for victims and clearly want to heal, and not hurt--examples are here. [2], [3] Why a list? Why go public? One reason is because it helps other rape survivors realize there are others who have had similar experiences. DanielEng 03:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would say that even in the case of living people, the notion of the category "outing" anyone is ridiculous. Being a rape survivor isn't shameful. The shame of rape should fall on the perpetrator, not the victim. The current thinking of most rape advocacy groups is to encourage survivors to come forward and share their names and stories, with the idea of showing solidarity, support and making it clear that rape is a real issue that could happen to anyone. Of course, if someone has not wished to be publicly identified (for instance an anonymous victim in a trial whose name is leaked to the media, or a minor), that's one thing, but if a living person has actively come out and told their story to the press, why not include them in the cat? DanielEng 07:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. - Squeakbox if rape is such a taboo subject for you that is fine and dandy for you, however, don't spread that here. And as for that outing subject it does not cover this issue. It would only apply should a person who was raped and wanted to keep it private and a public article about the incident is made. An article on such a person would be wrong. This is not happening, nor will it happen. Fighting for Justice 02:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per above keep comments. And the notion that this category is used to harass living rape victims does seem pretty laughable... --MatthewUND^(talk) 22:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are myraid WP:BLP concerns with this category as stated above. The categorization can and often is subjective and unverifiable. AniMate 22:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment How can you assume that ? This cat has existed for a while now and has only been "abuse" couple of time. Other than that there has never been a problem with this cat, specially with adding "unverifiable" subjects. The BPL violation is not a good argument against this cat simply because it has a caution there. Anyone taking a look at the cat will know for sure if a certen claim is legit or not- how can a living person be in a category of the dead????. Watchdogb 22:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as long as every rape in question is verified by a reliable source.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 22:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was going to say delete, but wanted to check if there was such a thing as Category:Murder victims. There is. So if the cautions listed are adhered to (which I think is going to take some serious monitoring, b/c the misuse potential definitely exists), then this should be kept. -Ebyabe 22:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per Fighting for Justice and MatthewUND. --Strothra 23:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above. Lotlil 00:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back Harlowraman 01:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Rape is clearly defined, so I see no problem with this category in terms of BLP. To me, the real issues come when a topic very hard to define. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 02:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - rape is not clearly defined. Rape is defined by different countries in different ways. Which definition of rape will this cat use? Dan Beale 16:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Naturally, it would use the definition of whatever country handled the case. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 02:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment What if the subject self-identifies as being raped but the country handling the case doesn't recognise it as rape? For example, in some countries men cannot be raped, and husbands cannot rape their wives. These are good cases to list in this cat (people campaigning for anti-rape awareness), but they demonstrate that there's problems with taking a country's definition of rape. Dan Beale 10:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's what the disclaimer/warning/message at the top of the cat is for. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 03:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A reasonable category of defined scope. While there may indeed be individuals whose inclusion in this category may be dubious, or inappropriate, that is a question to handle on those individual's pages. In many cases, a rape victim has made a sworn statement to the court that they were indeed raped. This means there is often documentation of it, and though in some cases the information isn't supposed to be released, at other times it is a matter of public record. In any case, I consider the methods used to try to remove this article to be highly questionable and possibly underhanded. FrozenPurpleCube 02:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment "in many cases, a rape victim has made a sworn statement" - most rapes are not reported to the police, most reported rapes are not taking to prosecution. In many cases the rape victim says nothing, to no-one. Dan Beale 16:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns are irrelevant to the question here. If nobody says anything to anyone, then quite clearly, there can't be reliable sources mentioning the rape, thus there would be no support for including the person in the category, or even mentioning the information on their article. Sorry, but the low report rate of rapes means nothing to the question of this having a category. FrozenPurpleCube 19:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some people will not report to the police, but there will be media coverage of allegations made by that person in biography. The Ulrika Jonsson case springs to mind - she claimed to have been raped but didn't name the rapist, his identity leaked, there was a media frenzy. Dan Beale 10:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I have no earthly idea how the example you've brought up relates to the objection you've been making. Apparently this person said something to many people. I think it's taken as a given that since she describes herself in her autobiography as being raped, categorizing her as a rape victim would be acceptable. The question of the alleged rapist is another matter, not especially relevant to this category. If you wish to address what to do with a category about rapists, that's a different discussion, and given the length of this one already, it would not be appropriate to get into it here. FrozenPurpleCube 23:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I don't think it's really a BLP issue, but I do think that it's not really a defining characteristic of many of these people. Rape is (unfortunately) not uncommon, and I think we may end up with a semi-random collection of people with little or nothing in common except one minor (from a historical perspective if not a personal one) incident in their lives. I think it may contribute to category clutter, and I fear the precedent. Should we have Category:Theft victims? Category:Arson victims? Category:Assault victims? Category:Libel victims? Category:Copyright infringement victims? Xtifr _tälk 04:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The fact of the matter here is that people on the category are notable because they were raped and then (in some cases) killed. These people would not have a wikipedia article if they were not raped/killed. So in your argument YES the categories you pointed out should exist IF and ONLY if these people are notable because of the subject in the category. Simply if someone becomes notable and thus has a wikipedia article because they were Assault victim then we should most definately have a category Category:Assault victims. However, I do not know of an article on wikipedia of a person who has become notable solely on being an assault victim. Watchdogb 05:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Billie Holiday is not notable just for being raped. If this were limited to people who are notable only for being raped, then I might agree with you. But at the same time, that would be strange to exclude people who do belong in the category (like Billie Holiday and Tori Amos), but are notable for completely other reasons. That seems to remove a lot of the usefulness of the category. So we have the strange case where the category should only be kept only if its utility and completeness are severely limited. Which seems a bit odd. Anyway, I don't feel strongly one way or the other, but I'm not persuaded to change my position either. Xtifr _tälk 07:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are exceptions, but in general, Theft usually does not have a shattering impact on someone's life, while Rape usually does. Therefore it's important. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Wikipedia biographies, by their very nature, are magnets for BLP violations. Sensitive categories like this demand vigilant maintenance to assure accuracy, but their role in identifying articles like Dru Sjodin is far too valuable. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and carefully monitor. I originally warned SqueakBox against his unilateral action against this category and I'm pretty disappointed that he would once again go on the offensive without going through CfD first. On the other hand, deleting the cat would not be a terrible loss and in many ways this would be better suited for a list which would be easier to monitor. Pascal.Tesson 09:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful category that needs careful care. Don't throw it out because that care is needed. - TexasAndroid 12:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and monitor per above. Will ^(talk) 13:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BLP violation argument seems irrelevant to me. The addition of this category to any article must be reliably sourced, but isn't that true of any information, especially of a controversial nature? Are we going to start excluding any information, sourced or not, that may be controversial, just in case...? I think this category can be seen to serve useful, encyclopedic purposes. Dekkappai 18:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Newspapers in the United States have a general policy of not reporting the identity of victims of sexual crimes unless they agree to be named. At the least, that should be our standard here. Notmyrealname 19:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't understand how the mere existence of the category contradicts that policy. Nor do I understand how removing the category from articles on subjects who admit they were raped upholds that policy. The only two subjects in which I edit who belong in this category would seem to be fully covered by the policy you mention. Instead, in direct contradiction to this policy, we have people removing the category from a subject who states in interviews that she was raped. Also, we have the category removed from Sada Abe, because, theoretically, the now 103-year-old prostitute, famous for severing her lover's genitalia and carrying them around in a handbag, is going to rise from the rubble of World War II to sue Wikipedia for defamation of character for (along with all three of the Japanese-made biopics on her) not providing a source for the claim that she was raped at the age of 14. (Actually, I do believe this claim should be sourced, and I'll find sourcing it an interesting challenge.) And now, not satisfied with just removing the category from valid subjects, we have the entire category up for deletion. Personally the category doesn't mean much to me other than providing verifiable, sourced encyclopedic information. And if doing that violates BLP policies, something is wrong with those policies or their implementation. Dekkappai 20:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - to come back to the newspaper policy mentioned above - in that case there would be lack of verifiable information, which then would preclude the subject being listed. This does not exclude verifiable/notable instances to be recorded. Agathoclea
Keep as part of subdivision scheme for Category:Crime victims This seems to be a legitimate subcategory for the parent category Category:Crime victims. After all, subdividing that parent category by the nature of the crime is natural categorization scheme. And of course no article should be placed here unless the fact that the person involved is indeed a rape victim is verified through outside published reliable sources. Dugwiki 20:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments by User:Fighting for Justice, User:DanielEng, and others. No justifiable reason to remove people from this category when the event is verifiable. Valrith 22:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like it's going to be kept, despite the WP:BLP concerns raised. How is this going to be policed to comply with BLP? Unlike things like Category:Americans convicted of murder, the victim side doesn't need a conviction of the culprit, or am I wrong there?

Say, person X claims s/he was raped, but cannot identify the culprit. Is the claim itself sufficient for inclusion?

Say, person X claims s/he was raped by Y, but Y is (a) never found, (b) never arrested, (c) never prosecuted, (d) never tried, (e) acquitted altogether, (f) acquitted of rape but convicted of some lesser offense (like battery or GBH for our British correspondents) or (g) convicted of rape, but overturned on appeal without retrial or the conviction quashed. Are all those scenarios includable?

Sad to say, but false accusations of rape have been making headlines of late and should WP and WP editors really be exposing themselves to liability for including say, the complaining witness in the Duke case in this category when ultimately it looks like people associated with the accusation are being pursued in the courts. Carlossuarez46 23:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the caution please. Thanks Watchdogb 23:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced reliance. People add categories without reading the caveats, people view the articles with the categories below without the caveats. And as for having one's "rape" reported by reliable sources; isn't that the person's "claim" of rape unless of course the reporter was there when it happened - using the Duke case as instructive material, it would "qualify" showing that even considering the caution, WP:BLP violations are both likely and now, apparently, invited. Carlossuarez46 03:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's of no benefit to the encyclopedia and it's likely to cause BLP violations. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Crime doesn't cease if we stop recording it; and we already have adequate policies in case people use the category improperly. "Wikipedia is not censored" should apply. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 18:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt, and scorch the earth on which it stood Serves no useful purpose, huge BLP concerns. Specific, notable incidents belong in the relevant bios, e.g., Kitty Genovese. Wikipedia isn't the police blotter. Raymond Arritt 22:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename and redefine This simply cries out for problems as it is. Again, as others pointed out countries define rape differently, and the legal definition of rape has change dramatically in many Western nations over the past 100 years. So, the category needs defined as to what definition of rape, if by country, then that country's rape definition must be listed, so it might require subcategories. In addition there are international definitions for rape that may have to be considered. It has too many difficulties as randomly defined. KP Botany 22:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per taprobanus.Baka man 23:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of what encyclopedic value is this? The only comment on the usefulness of the category that I have been able to glean from the above discussion is "is an excellent catagory (sic) because we can track down people who have been raped and killed in many places." Hal peridol 02:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't get this oft-repeated "No possible encyclopedic value" argument. Don't people know about Women's studies, Gender studies, Criminology, Sex and the law? etc., etc.... Any number of other important areas of study investigate rape. Intentionally hiding this sort of classification certainly won't make the crime go away-- as some seem to imply, and it will certainly hinder this sort of research. Dekkappai 02:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Studying rape and identifying rape victims are quite different. Imagine a category "Women who have had abortions" and trying to justify it as being equivalent to Women's studies. You're kidding right?
Delete basic, fundamental tenant of journalism is not to identify victims of sexual assault. Seems like this is pretty good rule. No encyclopedic value and huge BLP implications. Imagine a category Category:Women who have had abortions. Pathetic and disgusting. --Tbeatty 05:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment" As mentioned several times above, nobody voting "keep" has an interest in revealing names of victims of assault who have not made that information public. The people who would be in this category would ostensibly be a) notable individuals who have chosen to make knowledge of their assault public; b) people in court cases where there has been a conviction or forensic evidence and the name is public. And as mentioned before, several sexual assault survivor advocacy groups keep similar lists, as a way of helping other survivors. Examples: [4], [5] Is that "pathetic and disgusting" too? DanielEng 13:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not if you let those organizations manage Wikipedia's list. Or better yet, just create an article with the list. But a cateogry that is arbitrarily decided by consensus and added to biographies is not encyclopedic and problematic. --Tbeatty 17:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice in theory, in practice this cat was not being enforced when I cam across it on Sunday and I wonder how many keep votes will actively enforce it, and even if they do its still a troll magnet with BLP implications, SqueakBox 21:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Any category or article on Wiki has the potential to be a troll magnet. I'm active in the Counter-Vandalism Unit, and the articles targeted by trolls are pretty diverse and unexpected. People get a giggle out of vandalizing pencil, for instance.

If there's an issue with unsourced or inappropriate articles being added to the category, the answer would be to better police the cat, not delete it completely. Again, this happens with other articles and other cats, and it doesn't mean the content should be excluded. Deleting the cat isn't going to stop the concern. Any troll with an Internet connection can edit "X was raped" into an article just as easily as they can add the category tag. And without that category tag, it's going to be harder to find the articles where this was done. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. DanielEng 03:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not needed to sort people like this. --MichaelLinnear 07:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I completely fail to see why such a category is necessary or what purpose it serves in creating an encyclopedia. It is perjorative, disrespectful, and insensitive, and the so-called "caution" in using the category is weak and not really useful. A number of the people in the category who have suffered this terrible experience are not encyclopedic for because of their rape, they're encyclopedic for other reasons, so the category is irrelevant. As for someone who's main or only claim to "fame" (!) is that they were rape victims, I question the encyclopedic value of their articles. Just because a case might be high-profile doesn't necessarily make the victim encyclopedic. Again, the category becomes irrelevant. This category only serves to support the detractors of this wiki and gives it a tabloid flair. Agent 86 22:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By nature I'm not a tattle-tale, but SqueakBox is removing people from this category while it's under discussion. (According to the nomination, he's done this twice before.) That's typically done after a category has been deleted in accordcane with a CfD, not while the discussion is on-going. I think SqueakBox is acting in bad faith by de-populating a category while it's under discussion, and I wanted other editors to know about it. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its called enforcing our policies, we cannot allow unsourced allegations or BLP vios merely because this cat is under discussion, and enforcing our policies is good faith and claiming it is bad faith is an unacceptable personal attack for me just doing my job. Cat delete discussions do not exempt us from enforcing our BLP, verification and other policies SqueakBox 23:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The way that this category has been reworded is fucking ludicrous. Before, this would list all the victims of rape on Wikipedia, now it only lists those that we deem famous enough? Who's idea was that? So now we remove people who are only notable as being victims of crime, because they're not a celebrity? Where do we draw the line here? At Paris Hilton? No. All victims of rape in this category, if you're researching rape, then you'll obviously not just want the ones found in Heat magazine.

The pious BLP police have this all wrong, the current wording is so counterintuitive. So victims such as Steven Stayner get removed, the ones whose victimisation is a prime factor in their notability? And yet those people whose rape plays a wholly insignificant part in their biographies such as Billie Holiday get left there? Stop this original research and elitist policy paranoia, and put rape victims in Category:Rape victims. - hahnch e n 00:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - SqueakBox is again going around removing people from the category. I have no doubt he will be at it again after the next full 24 hrs period. This is insanity needs to stop. He changes nothing in the contents of the article, only the category. He is not acting on the behalf of the families. He operates on this sanctimonious logic nobody appointed him for this. Administrators do something about him! Fighting for Justice 00:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we be outing rape victims on wikipedia? Is this acceptable behaviour. iIts quite clear this cat is unpoliceable because some editors think we should out rape victims in a handy list fopr any troll or convicted sex offender to drool over et al but should wikipedia support that? Appointed FfJ? Can you clarify or are you still persisting in claiming ownership of these articles in spite of being warned that this is not acceptable. Claiming that trying to prevent rape victims beiong outed is certainly a new definition of the word insanity and yetr another personal attack by FfJ in spite of being warned about his personal; attacks against me for trying to enfoce our policies and defend wikipedia. You've asked admins to do somethinfg about me befopre and been warned for your inappropriate behaviour but appear not to have learnt anything. This cat is clearly unenforceable and so should be speedied, SqueakBox 00:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And administrators have asked you not depopulate the rape victim category but that's never stopped you from doing it anyways. You also asked administrators to make me change my user name. And you didn't get your wish. Fighting for Justice 02:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're not outing anyone, we cite references to reliable sources. Right now, the category is a fucking joke, because some holier-than-thous have decided that only the famous can get raped. It's only unenforceable, because some guy moved the goalposts into the realms of original research, the Paris Hilton line is it? Move them back. - hahnch e n 00:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and maybe sort) This is a very reasonable category, as rape is a clearly identified crime, and we can reasonably trust Wikipedia editors to make a judgment for category inclusion based upon the facts presented in articles and/or the supplied references. Further, facts don't stop being facts because somebody out there might be distressed by them. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Since rape is an actual crime and something that is universally agreed upon, it is appaling that some would rather just dust this under the rug because one person may be 'offended' by the terminology. All rape instances listed on Wikipedia should be cited with a reliable source that is verifiable, at the minimum. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - THis "outing" stuff is your original research Squeakbox. You are no mind-reader to know that people would only want this category for malicious purposes. The crux of your argument is based on opinion, not facts. Fighting for Justice 02:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, wrong again. Having a list of rape victims is indeed outing these poor people who never wanted to be raped in the first place.O we have a duty to be on the side of the victims and not the rapists, but I dont like rapists or rape, SqueakBox 03:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nobody here likes rapists or rape. Some of the people voting on this issue may very well be survivors, you know.

The outing concern is not valid here. Any information in a Wiki article has to be sourced properly. We don't have sources for rape accounts unless there's been media coverage, forensic evidence or the person (or their family) has disclosed the incident her/himself. If such a source exists, the rape is not a secret. You can't "out" someone if they've already made the information public.

So what if someone adds someone else inappropriately to the category? A source is requested; if none can be found, or it's a circumstance in which it's obvious that the information was not meant to be disclosed (for example a court case in progress), it's deleted just as any other unsourced or BLP vio information would be. DanielEng 04:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we do not have a duty to be on anyones side, according to WP:NPOV, which you are so fond of citing. And if its already stated in the article that they were raped, how is categorizing them outing them any further? i ^{(said) (did)} 03:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. NPOV doesnt mean being neutral between criminal and victim it meansd taking the commonb view which in this case supports the victim and not the perpetrator. Your claim could be considered a troll bible for supporting criminals et al and that is not what we are about. Our vision is to have a balanced, common sense view of everything not to be indifferent to the pain of victims and the evil of perpetrators. That would be crazy and is not supported bu any poolicy including NPOV, SqueakBox 03:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no it does not. Neutral is neutral. Not favoring who society favors, favoring none. And troll bible?? Do explain. I'm not supporting anyone. The vision is to have a balanced encyclopedia. Not "common sense". Balanced. Not favoring anyone. i ^{(said) (did)} 03:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is your opinion but it aint wikipedia policy as it would be unworkable and we arent here to be scientific but to describe the world as it is and has been, ie balanced and with common sense. Outing rape victims isnt being balanced its being vindictive, SqueakBox 03:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't wikipedia policy?! Have you read the page? It says to represent fairly, without bias. Without bias. Not with common sense. Stop calling it outing please, since it clearly isn't, as the article itself says they've been raped. i ^{(said) (did)} 03:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly and without bias means not taking the side of the rapist over that of the victim. The rapist raped and we, being not biased, dont take their side but have sympathy towards the victim. that is being unbiased by any reasonable, civilised standard. Outing victims by making a list of them shows stroing bias towards the rapist without whom the rape would nebver have occurred. i'll stop calling it outing when the cat is deletyed but not before, and saying someone has been raped in an article is nott he same as a list of rape victims, the latter clearly serves no other purpose than to out rape victims, SqueakBox 03:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even hear yourself? "But have symapthy towards the victim". That is practically the definition of bias. And there aren't several definitions of bias. And why do you insist to answer my comments about it not being outing? You skirt around it, but dont say why it's outing. i ^{(said) (did)} 04:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really shouldn't keep on using the word "outing" not because of bias, but because it's just flat out misleading about what's happening here. We're not outing Ilayathambi Tharsini, we document from reliable sources (such as Amnesty International in this case),although you obviously feel she should be removed from the category, because she's not famous enough. No purpose other than to "out" rape victims? This is absurd, rape is an academically researched subject, from gender studies to law, having this category to aid that research is definitely makes this useful. - hahnch e n 08:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As said before, this is a legitimate category. The BLP concerns, as mentioned before, can be resolved by a monitoring of this category. i ^{(said) (did)} 02:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per many above. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid deletion argument, and that really seems to be Squeekbox's complaint. Resolute 02:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that the category's "caution" says that the individual that the category is applied to must be "well-known". "Well known" is an un-wiki requirement for category placement -- if a subject is notable enough to have an article, they are well-known enough to use any appropriate Wikipedia classification. If you don't think an individual is well-known, then submit their article for Afd. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an argumetn to remove all bios from wikipedia, an argument considered sound by a considerable minority but not by me, SqueakBox 03:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No where does wikipedia support the rapist. I'm sure the parents of convicted murderers did not expect their child to grow up to be infamous murderers. Shall we remove the American murderers category in order to be sensitive to the murderer's parents???? You are grasping at straws. Squeaxbox Fighting for Justice 03:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You highlight a good point. The equivalent category for your above examples would be Category:Lits of parents of murderers. We certainly wouldn't have this category because of it's BLP implications. Victims should not be listed. They've already been raped once. No reason to repeat it in the Encyclopedia. --Tbeatty 04:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere except this cat. There is a level of shame around rape that doesnt exist with murders but I dont need to tell you that, SqueakBox 03:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But there parents are still victims. They did not encourage their child to rape and murder someone. If you care about victims you will care about ALL victims. I see that your sense of caring is selective. Fighting for Justice 03:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on that's not what I meant and you know it. Rape brings shame, its not a good thing but it is real. You cant tell me with a straight face that it isnt if you really care about rape victims. I think any victim of violence (including myself) should be respected as a victim, SqueakBox 04:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brings shame? We're to whitewash things because they bring shame? This is how people are interpreting BLP? How about all the shame from criminality? Category:Criminals by nationality, or do we just care about victim's rights? Shame is an entirely constructed thing, borne out of society and culture, it's not a science, we should not be degrading an encyclopedia, whose audience is the entire population in a vain attempt to respect your patronising views of a victim's wishes. - hahnch e n 07:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - I gave this one extra thought. I don't see any significant value added by this category, and the liabilities are significant. Salt, because the risk/return ratio will never change. - Crockspot 04:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on nothing. Nobody is getting disrespected here. When are you going to finally see that? If something is already public knowledge then it's not outing. The information is verifiable, and so long as it exist for educational purposes it is valid. No matter what anyone's self-rightgeousness may say. Fighting for Justice 04:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the grounds of common sense. Rape is stigmatic in every culture. It is common for media outlets to refrain from doing things that contribute to this stigma; we ought to hold ourselves to the same standard. Additionally, this is over categorization on a good number of the articles it's applied (e.g. Billie Holiday) and there are too few articles where it'd be appropriate. I also agree with SlimVirgin and Crockspot above: there is little encyclopedic value to this category and this category has the strong potential to do great harm. shotwell 07:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy and Strong Delete: This adds zero value to Wikipedia and is in no way encyclopedic, not to mention having all kinds of weirdos looking at the page. It looks VERY bad if this page is allowed to continue to be on Wiki. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 08:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment weirdos???? That's not a good reason for axing the category. Weirdos will access wikipedia with or without the category in place. Fighting for Justice 09:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:BLP has got to be the worst thing that has ever happened to this encyclopedia. The privacy of a few public figures is utterly outweighed by the disruption to thousands of other articles and bitter fighting within our community. It is not harrassment, intrusion or "outing" to place a category on someone's article, WHATEVER that category is, if reliable sources within the article justify their inclusion. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not normally a definining characteristic of a person, so they should not be categorized that way. BLP considerations come only on top of that. --Latebird 13:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: violates WP:BLP in many cases, which despite what Dev920 might think is critical to minor little things like, oh, not being sued for libel. This is also a violation of Jimbo's recent change to WP:NOT. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - May you kindly point out what that new change is, or called? BLP may be violated in any such way. All it needs is some good monitoring, nothing is set in stone. Fighting for Justice
Every biography is open to libel, policing that with BLP is fine. Policing possible "privacy concerns" and "shame" isn't. If you do not think the cases noted in Category:Rape victims are notable cases, then AFD them. It is not the category that is at fault. - hahnch e n 16:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete No, no, no, no... just like child molestation and kidnapping victims, this is a complete unneeded no-no that is a BLP nightmare. Cbrown1023 talk 16:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason BLP is a nightmare is because some editors are bending backwards to enforce a totally ambiguous policy, and can pretty much do as they like because as long as they're enforcing the "spirit", that's fine. Unlike kidnapping, rape is a serious part of academic research, and this is a useful subcategory of Category:Rape. That editors have cited "BLP concerns" to try and enforce a "Only celebrities can be raped" rule, shows a total McCarthyist attitude towards enforcing both the spirit and letter of BLP. - hahnch e n 16:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't yet decided here, but I have a couple of points I want to make (some of which have been touched upon above):
1. "Rape victims" is a definitive category with little ambiguity. This does not reflect the common reality (in general, and in Wikipedia articles). "Rape" is broadly and variably defined across cultures. ("Victim" is, too, to a lesser extent.) What's considered legally actionable rape in one country may not be in another country. (Date rape and spousal rape are obvious examples.)
2. To be listed in this category requires WP:BLP-mandated sourcing of the claim. But that's not enough, in my opinion. Take Billie Holiday, currently listed in this category: "At the age of 11, she reported that she had been raped.[2]" The statement is sourced to a WP:RS biography--that's good--but doesn't really fit in the category because a rape report ≠ a rape. Holliday would fit in Category:Alleged rape victims, but not this one.
3. In line with my above comment, and in concern with comparisons to Category:Murder victims, these are kind of apples and oranges--an individual's "murdered" status is far more definitively determined than an indivial's "raped" status as the former's category's most important function is essentially binary (is the person dead?) whereas "rape" has enormous swaths of legal and cultural gray areas. Category:Fraud victims would be a more appropriate comparison since it contains the same sort of ambiguity and likely the same type of WP:BLP concerns, but that has never existed.
4. With all that said, however, I think the category, if applied correctly could prove useful, especially since the rape of some individuals is essentially the foundation of their notability (Lucretia, Desiree Washington). I have reservations, though, that it will just continue to be a POV battleground. I think I'd prefer a more definitive, even if more clumsy and exclusive, Category:Legally recognized victims of rape... — Scientizzle 17:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blp concerns; not a defining characteristic of a person; it's an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute, strong, immediate and permanent delete. This is an encylopedia, not a tool for titillation. The cat isn't clear or meaningful and doesn't define a person or event suitably where better cats are available. --AlisonW 20:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Tool for titllation?" That makes very ugly assumptions about Wikipedia's legitimate editors/readers and their reasons for populating such a category.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 20:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Taprobanus. If it's mentioned in the article and sourced, then it can be used as the basis for inclusion in the category. Claims that the category can be misused are misguided attempts to police the use of Wikipedia. If the mention of rape in the article survives WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP, then how is inclusion in the category a misuse? --Richard 21:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you claiming we shouldnt police wikipedia, then? The difference with the cat is it allows readers to find out who has been raped, hence the titillation comment by AlisonW being a valid point, SqueakBox 21:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you find rape victims titillating, then you do speak for yourself. We do not delete things because of the possibility that some find this titillating. This is the fucking internet, every single object is an object of fetish somewhere. Rape is the object of academic study, and yet a useful category linking rape cases is consistently classified as useless? - hahnch e n 22:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP concerns. --Aude (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've not asked any other editors this, but could you expand on your personal interpretation of BLP and how this category disagrees? - hahnch e n 22:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe that those arguing for retention are acting in good faith, but there's just too much potential for BLP abuse. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 21:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all the reasons already mentioned. Garion96 (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too open to vandalism and per WP:BLP. -Nard 22:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic and has the potential for real-life harm. I further suggest that those people complaining about WP:BLP spoiling their ability to categorise people by crime-victimhood should stop and re-examine their priorities. Jkelly 23:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And our priorities should be to bend over backwards to chase shadows? Rape is an important part of sociology and law, we have Category:Rape, having a category to sort out the cases is not unencyclopedic. - hahnch e n 00:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of dubious benefit to the encyclopaedia, and possibility of harm for living people. ElinorD (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No redeeming quality and does more harm than good. MkDoyle 01:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No benefit to the encyclopedia, BLP issues abound, what good does this serve? KnightLago 01:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think I should note that most -- if not all -- of the BLP concerns I've seen are rectified by the disclaimer. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 02:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I think I should note that is your opinion. KnightLago 13:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also the policy. BLP states that controversial material must be sourced, and the category states that there must be clear sources. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 13:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In agreement with many of the arguments above. Eusebeus 10:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Discussion on Jimbo's talk page [6] --Tbeatty 13:44, 28 July 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

People by former religion[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 13:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: On 16 July Category:Lapsed Roman Catholics and Category:Former Roman Catholics were deleted following this discussion. It was determined there that a person's former religion is not a defining characteristic. Using this as precedent, I propose that Category:People by former religion and all sub-categories are deleted. Hera1187 13:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All. It is a poor category, pov in its nature and unencyclopedic. There may be other reasons to object that I will post later. --Blue Tie 13:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Update: Again, Delete all. These categories are too easily abused. There may be SOMETIMES people who are most defined by what they USED to be, but this must certainly be the exception rather than the rule. So these categories are easy to abuse. They also are pov traps. It is not a good idea to generally define people or things in terms of what they are NOT but rather what they ARE. This seeks to define them in a negative way, which is less useful and potentially pov. --Blue Tie 02:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: Who decided that these are not defining characteristics? For many people they are. For example if a person is a former Muslim, that is a very strong defining characteristic. Dont give weak links to "Lapsed Roman Catholics". The rationale in that CfD "not a defining characteristic" was only given for this category. It doesnt apply to other more well defined categories like "Former Muslims". "Former Scientologists" is also a very important category for a person. This is a bad faith nomination of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Only one person in the Roman Catholic discussion stated that a person's former religion is not a defining characteristic. That's not a consensus. Mike R 17:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. —Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if these cats are kept, I think Category:Former Roman Catholics should be recreated. --86.156.193.109 13:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if Former Roman Catholics is a valid category and can be sourced, it should be used. A person's current or former religion is all notable information. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all non-defining characterstic. Is Magic Johnson known for being a former Seventh-day Adventists or is James Hetfield known for being a former Christian Scientists? Very trivial. Lugnuts 14:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I removed both Magic Johnson and James Hetfield from their respective categories, though I have doubts about the latter. Andries 17:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as non-defining characteristic, and precedent cited by nom. ITAQALLAH 15:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Not a defining characteristic for some people, e.g. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Steven Hassan, and Karen Armstrong? Andries 20:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Matt57. Being a former member of a religion is in many cases a defining characteristic. -- Karl Meier 16:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some in this category may have this as a defining characteristic, but what about all of those that do not? Vegaswikian 19:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Commment Remove the category for people for whom it is not a defining characteric. We should not get rid of the category:painters only because it is not defining characteristic of some people, like Adolf Hitler. Andries 20:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Karl Meier. The Roman Catholic nomination was a screwup and should not be used as precedent. Mike R 17:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. While for some it may be a defining characteristic, this appears to be nothing but a series of categories where anyone who was a former member of the religion gets included. If someone can propose a way that the category names clearly state that it is not for everyone, then creating a new series of categories that are restricted to individuals where this is a defining characteristic would be better then renaming these and then trying to cleanup the extra entries. Vegaswikian 19:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per nom and especially per Vegaswikian. Otto4711 21:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - non-defining characteristic. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 07:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: People, why is this a "non-defining" characteristic? Is "Former Muslim" not a defining characteristic of Ayaan Hirsi Ali? If Tom Cruise left scientology, wouldnt "Former Scientologist" be a defining characteristic of his? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That it may be a defining characteristic for some members of the category doesn't mean that it is sufficiently defining of everyone who might belong to the category. Otto4711 15:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Whether or not a categorize-able quality is a "defining characteristic" is a silly and subjective determination. Who is proposing that we get rid of all categories that don't, in and of themselves, "define" who or what the subject is? (this may be a policy I'm unfamiliar with; if so, it's an extremely poorly worded policy). We should keep the categories because they are a convenient way of grouping article subjects by a verifiable biographical detail (not unlike occupation or birthplace).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all not defining - there's no limitation at all on this, you can be a member of a religion or renounce it for greater or lesser periods: if we examine the various records of nearly everyone in pre-1989 USSR we'd probably find them as atheists on paper - so what? We have plenty of articles about conversion with lists of converts all over the place. There it can be sourced. Carlossuarez46 23:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all except Category:Former Iglesians Categories are defining characteristics of some people, like Karen Armstrong, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Steven Hassan. Re-instate category:former Roman Catholics. I have read one book about the subject of former Roman Catholics years ago (I do not remember the title at this moment) and am busy with the second one i.e. "Graceful Exits: Catholic women and the art of departure" by Debra Campbell 2003, ISBN 0-253-34316-X Indiana University Press. I was reading the chapter about Armstrong. See also religious disaffiliation that I started. Andries 05:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all The "Former Roman Catholics" discussion should not be used as a precedent - far more editors have already commented here. It was a classic merge-converted-to-delete-both CfD ambush, which often produce results that do not stand the test of time. For many people these are defining characteristics. Not for all people, but the numbers in the categories do not suggest that categorisation is being done indiscriminately. Johnbod 13:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Carlos Bulldog123 14:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and recreate a category for Catholics. I am simply floored by the assertion that leaving or renouncing one's religious beliefs (or non-beliefs, as the case may be) is somehow "trivial". Changing one's religious beliefs or affiliation is almost always a very significant act. Just because a few editors don't comprehend that or don't perceive it to be the case, doesn't mean that these categories are unimportant. Please bear in mind that there are countless readers of Wiki who find categories of this sort extremely valuable. Why on earth would we want to make Wiki less useful to its readers?? Cgingold 12:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All categories. There's no reason to delete any of them. It's not like they are taking up extra bandwidth. It's also quite relevant to each person's bio. Rambone (Talk) 04:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Like Diana Zubiri? Did I miss the reference in the article? Vegaswikian 06:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added the explicit condition in the category that it should be a defining characteristic. I can not see any such indication for Diana Zubiri, so I shall remove her from the Category:Former_Iglesians. Then the category can be deleted because it is empty. Andries 20:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All ~~Per Carlos and Vegas.~~ After a reevaluation of this, there are cases where the fact that they are no longer a practicing member of a religion is relevant. My problem, however, is that currently, it is an indiscriminate list of people who have renounced their religion, even when it has no relevance. If someone could go through and change them so that only people where it matters is categorized, and there are enough people in the category to warrant one, I would be in support of that. Until then, however, I shall remain supporting a deletion of these categories. i ^{(said) (did)} 04:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Not a defining characteristic. Garion96 (talk) 08:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that Andries is canvasing people to change their vote (see my talk page as an example). I'm pretty sure that you're not supposed to do that. Lugnuts 11:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I started to inform people that I made changes to the categories to deal with the most frequently stated reason for deletion. Based on this I requested people who voiced this reason to change their votes. That is, I think, perfectly acceptable.Andries 11:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I, for one, have no problem with that. I still think the categories should be deleted though. Especially since much of this information is controversial and needs to be sourced. That however is impossible to do with the category system, a list would work much better in this regard. Garion96 (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The work that Andries is doing shows exactly why these categories should be deleted. They do not contain individuals who have leaving a religion as a defining characteristic, but it is a catchall. Changing the introduction will not make the problem go away and we know that everyone of these categories will not be monitored to only keep the right entries in them. So it is better to delete then it is to keep categories with names that do not reflect the purpose put forth here for keeping them and with names that don't reflect the qualifications for inclusion. For some articles where leaving the religion and a life change happened, it is not clear which led event led to the other. So for many of these, it may well be that the reason for changing religion was the result of some other event which makes the religion change an effect of something else and not a defining characteristic. It also makes the inclusion criteria somewhat POV. Vegaswikian 18:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Changing a religion is a very important event in a person's life, sometimes a defining characteristic of notability. I am bothered that Category:Former Roman Catholics was deleted without a general discussion on all such categories, and the result of that discussion is now being used as a precedent. This should have been done exactly backwards. Beit Or 17:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All as per others - not a defining charasteristic of an individual. → AA ^(talk) — 18:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All Although the information is interesting, there are too many living persons problems. Especially with Scientology where anyone who attended a Scientology class is labeled for life as a "former Scientologist." The category page itself mentions an anti-Scientology site as the source of infomation for the list. Steve Dufour 19:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think that I have now removed all people from the category: former Scientologists who do not belong there. Andries 20:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and Recreate Category:Former Roman Catholics. A person's former religion is as defining as a person's current religion. If these cats are deleted, then all cats relating to a person's religion should be deleted, and I don't think there is any appetite for that. --Philip Stevens 20:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perhaps category members should be considered on a case by case basis. For example in the category I created, Category:Former Seventh-day Adventists, Dale Ratzlaff's premier notability is probably as a former Adventist, as he is one of the leading critics. D. M. Canright is the most notable early critic, and J. Mark Martin is another prominent contemporary critic. These should be in some related category, I believe. However admittedly other individuals are less notable as former Adventists, or merely grew up in an Adventist family (apply examples to all groups). Colin MacLaurin 10:31, 30 July 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:All India Forward Block[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Incorrect spelling of the party name. Should be renamed to Category:All India Forward Bloc. Soman 12:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom - could be speedied. Johnbod 12:33, 25 July 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Songs referenced by The Pogues[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: "Non-defining or trivial characteristic." as per WP:OCAT - another band's "reference" (however that's defined) is rarely of relevance to the article subject, and certainly isn't in these cases. McGeddon 11:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as trivial characteristic. Otto4711 14:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dominictimms 12:45, 27 July 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Judeo-Christian prophets[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category causes confusion and merges what should be kept as two distinct subjects relating to two different religions. "Judeo-Christian prophets" also has the ring of a neoligism and hence probably violates WP:NEO. It is also structured incorrectly, and has taken it upon itself to perform a de facto "upmerge" of Jewish Biblical prophets (the Christian ones would follow soon enough presumably.) There is already Category:Prophets in Judaism and Category:Prophets of the Hebrew Bible which have done the job quite well thus far, and there is Category:Prophets in Christianity. They are all part of the parent category Category:Prophets. It is useless and dangerous to now link up all the prophets of the world into larger categories like "Judeo-Christian prophets" that seek to blur the lines between two conflicting religions and clear, agreed-upon, long-established, categories. IZAK 08:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant categeory, and avoid creeping Supersessionism please. Thank you. IZAK 08:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it was me who pointed out that this category is effectively a duplicate of "Prophets of the Hebrew Bible" although I am open to persuasion which should be deleted. Are there any prophets in the Hebrew Bible who are not recognised by both Judaism and Christianity? PatGallacher 09:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Christians consider Enoch, Daniel, and Abel to be prophets though Jews do not.

Jews consider Abigail, Amoz, Balaam, Baruch ben Neriah, Beor (Bible), Bildad, Bithiah, Eli (Bible), Elihu (Job), Eliphaz (Job), Elkanah (husband of Hannah), Esther, Hannah (Bible), Job (Bible), Mehseiah, Mordecai, Neriah, Sarah, Seraiah ben Neriah, Zophar though Christians do not accept these people as prophets. Though there is a major overlap thus i made the Judeo-Christian prophets category and made it a subcategory of Prophets in Christianity and Prophets in Judaism and simply put the overlap in Judeo-Christian prophets--Java7837 12:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC) (tidied & punctuated Johnbod 19:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. Do you have clear authority for this? Is there a clear procedure for recognising someone as a prophet in either Christianity or Judaism? PatGallacher 18:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Judaism it's the Talmud--Java7837 18:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe that Latter Day Saints consider the president of their church to be a Prophet. Carlossuarez46 23:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Java7837: Point number one: Please use a coherent way of answering questions. Your typing is all over the place and that makes it hard to read your comments or to respond in an oderly fashion. Point number two: It is arrogant and dangeous on your part to lump together in one category various personalities that may be shared by two diverse and conflicting religions. Following such flawed thinking and crazy "categories" would you then propose that all Judaism articles should be done away with and merged with Christianity under "Judeo-Christian" -- you know, one could combine all Jewish rabbis and Christian priests under Category:Judeo-Christian theologians or the six million Jews killed in the Holocaust with all martyred Christian saints under Category:Judeo-Christian martyrs or the Talmud with the Epistles as Category:Judeo-Christian literature -- ALL of which would be gross violations of logic and history and make a mockery of how and why human knowledge is organized, and sadly would make Judaism "go away" and insult the uniqueness of both religions. Finally, as a word of advice, if you are having trouble with highly sensitive topics relating to Judaism, and you wish to get further input from editors who may know something about the subject, kindly place a request and start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism first. Thank you. IZAK 05:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 05:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Delete the category I wasn't thinking--Java7837 18:48, 26 July 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Partisan Newspapers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Most newspapers support a particular line or tendency, surely? What constitutes partisanship? Is it endorsing particular candidates or parties at elections? This category is too subjective and surely a target for mischief making. Man vyi 07:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This category states that some newspapers may take a specific viewpoint. However, this is such a common phenomenon that it is not a defining characteristic. The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 08:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all media is subjective. --Soman 12:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Dr. Johnbod 14:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A PoV magnet category. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 02:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but only with clear definition of the term. (Also, it should, of course, be changed to Category:Partisan newspapers, to conform to naming guidelines.) Currently the page has this description: "Partisan Newspapers are those who support a particular ideology, belief or viewpoint". I would suggest something along the following lines: "Partisan newspapers are those which have declared support for or affiliation with a particular political party or ideology, or which exist for the primary purpose of furthering a particular cause or ideology." Very few newspapers in the modern day United States would meet those criteria, but 100 years ago such papers were common. And since this category isn't restricted to US publications, it's open to newspapers from every part of the globe. There are a number of papers in the UK that come to mind as possible candidates. Likewise for France, Italy, Japan, etc. Furthermore, there are several existing cats for Communist, Socialist, and Fascist newspapers which would be obvious subcats of Category:Partisan Newspapers. Cgingold 13:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think that Category Non-Partisan Newspapers would be nigh on empty. —Ian Spackman 14:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only entry says "Some feel that " - surely some feel that any given newspaper is partisan. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:09, 29 July 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Neighbourhoods in Canada[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Calgary neighbourhoods --> Category:Neighbourhoods in Calgary
Category:Neighbourhoods of Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island --> Category:Neighbourhoods in Charlottetown
Category:Edmonton neighbourhoods --> Category:Neighbourhoods in Edmonton
Category:Greater Victoria neighbourhoods --> Category:Neighbourhoods in Greater Victoria
Category:Langley neighbourhoods --> Category:Neighbourhoods in Langley, British Columbia
Category:Neighbourhoods of Mississauga, Ontario --> Category:Neighbourhoods in Mississauga
Category:Montreal neighbourhoods --> Category:Neighbourhoods in Montreal
Category:Neighbourhoods of Kingston, Ontario --> Category:Neighbourhoods in Kingston, Ontario
Category:North Bay, Ontario neighbourhoods --> Category:Neighbourhoods in North Bay
Category:Neighbourhoods of Oshawa --> Category:Neighbourhoods in Oshawa
Category:Ottawa neighbourhoods --> Category:Neighbourhoods in Ottawa
Category:Neighbourhoods of Saskatoon --> Category:Neighbourhoods in Saskatoon
Category:Sault Ste. Marie neighbourhoods --> Category:Neighbourhoods in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario
Category:Neighbourhoods of St. John's --> Category:Neighbourhoods in St. John's
Category:Surrey neighbourhoods --> Category:Neighbourhoods in Surrey, British Columbia
Category:Timmins, Ontario neighbourhoods --> Category:Neighbourhoods in Timmins
Category:Toronto neighbourhoods --> Category:Neighbourhoods in Toronto
Category:Vancouver neighbourhoods --> Category:Neighbourhoods in Vancouver
Category:Neighbourhoods of Windsor, Ontario --> Category:Neighbourhoods in Windsor, Ontario
Category:Winnipeg neighbourhoods --> Category:Neighbourhoods in Winnipeg
Category:Markham, Ontario neighbourhoods --> Category:Neighbourhoods in Markham, Ontario
Category:Neighbourhoods of Richmond, British Columbia --> Category:Neighbourhoods in Richmond, British Columbia
Category:Greater Sudbury communities --> Category:Neighbourhoods in Greater Sudbury

Rename all. Situation with "Neighbourhoods" categories is another example of big Wikipedia categorisation mess. We have categories named "Neighbourhoods in XY", "Neighbourhoods of XY" and "XY neighbourhoods". Subcategories of Category:Neighbourhoods by country are all already named in "Neighbourhoods in XY" style. It seems that this convention is more modern and popular. Many "XY neighbourhoods" categories were started in the time, when categories like "XY lakes" or "XY buildings" were made, now all renamed long time ago. So I propose making a standard of "Neighbourhoods in XY" to clean up this mess. Above nominated are only Canadian neighbourhoods, and if this nomination will be successful, I am going to nominate for renaming also rest of categories from other countries. P.S. As for the "in", "of" issue, "of" is supposed for geographical categories, "in" for human settlements and buildings. This is generally accepted naming convention. - Darwinek 07:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all - Uniform category names are preferable, and the suggestion seems in line with the naming conventions for most other categories on places. Dr. Submillimeter 07:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all for consistency Johnbod 14:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. All of them seem to be consistent now. GreenJoe 16:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You must be kidding. Look again. - Darwinek 16:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to the standard form for regions etc. Mowsbury 18:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all, though I've modified the listing so that the category for Charlottetown doesn't include PEI in its title, and those for Mississauga, North Bay and Timmins don't include Ontario; these location names are overwhelmingly associated with those cities. Mind matrix 23:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename All I see a list with a lot of minor variations. Make them consistent, and it could help users looking for related categories.66.48.175.102 04:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all; consistency is best in this case. Bearcat 04:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all --Java7837 18:59, 26 July 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Piano sonatas by Frédéric Chopin[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 14:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Small with almost no potential; if Chopin had written 32 sonatas like Beethoven this would be understandable but since there are only three it seems almost useless to have it. — $PЯIПGrαgђ 04:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are only three, but this is put of a (not much) wider scheme in Category:Piano sonatas, which has a number of by composer sub-cats. This is an exception to the "small and incapable of growth" principle. Johnbod 14:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Compositions by Frédéric Chopin and Category:Piano sonatas. Categorizing specific types of pieces by specific composers is too much fragmentation with little gained by it. Anyone looking for Chopin's sonatas is not going to have any difficulty picking out the articles called "Piano sonata" in the compositions category. Suggest adding the other subcats of Category:Piano sonatas to this nomination if it's not too late, since the result for all of them should probably be the same, and upmerging them all to the parent and to the composer's compositions category. Otto4711 14:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find that a very odd comment from someone who puts so much time into far more minutely categorised areas of popular culture. I would very strongly oppose deleting the Beethoven & other categories. If you are a pianist you do not want to have to search for piano compositions among great numbers of orchestral or choral ones. We rightly have wider schemes for symphonies, operas, Lieder and other types of composition. There are infinitely fewer categories in classical music than in popular music or film, but the few that there are still encounter this sort of attitude. Johnbod 14:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That other categorization schemes exist doesn't justify this categorization scheme. Since it appears that each of the articles categorized under the Piano sonatas subcats are named either "Piano sonata #" or "Sonata #" it seems unlikely that anyone searching for Piano sonatas is going to have any difficulty in finding them as they would all be grouped in numerical order under either "P" or "S". Not sure what my involvement in other categorization schemes has to do with anything. Otto4711 16:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But we already have about 5 "Piano Sonata No 1"s by different composers, & could easily have 20 in the future, and many composers wrote over 20. I can't think of a clearer case for subcategorisation. The PS category would already look ridiculous if all the sub-cats were upmerged, even before people start using the titles, rather than the numbers, of the Moonlight Sonata, Pathetique Sonata etc. The relevance of your involvement with other category schemes is that you seem to apply very different standards on areas where you work yourself. Johnbod 17:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the sonata articles specify the composer, for instance, Piano Sonata No. 1 (Chopin). Since this nomination isn't about me but rather the category, I'm still not seeing the relevance of my other opinions. Maybe you should stick to arguing the merits instead of trying to make this personal. Otto4711 17:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they do, but imagine an undivided category with 100 or more articles, some with composer name default sorts, some sorting on Sonata, others sorting on Piano. Hardly easy naigation. Johnbod 18:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good argument for maintaining the parent category better instead of splintering it into a bunch of subcats. Otto4711 19:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so Otto! Johnbod 19:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now as part of "Piano Sonatas by composer", but might reconsider merging the whole scheme This category looks to be one of four in a collective scheme to subdivide Category:Piano sonatas by composer. So I'd suggest keeping this category as part of that scheme. However, that being said, I'd be willing to entertain the notion of upmerging all parts of that scheme back into Category:Piano sonatas. If you're going to recommend that, though, it should be done as an umbrella nomination for all the composers involved. Dugwiki 21:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, it's a small category, but it works as a subcategory of both Category:Piano sonatas and Category:Compositions by Frédéric Chopin, and potentially other future categories... We have Category:Romantic symphonies, with its subcategories (Category:Symphonies by Sergei Rachmaninoff, with 3½ entries)... What about Romantic piano music? Romantic sonatas? Romantic piano sonatas? Polish piano music?... Sub-grouping within these larger categories by composer seems sensible. Dekkappai 00:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments of Johnbod and Dekkappai. Sure, three pieces is a bare minimum, but there's no potential for rampant proliferation of such subcats. Off the top of my head, only two composers are even conceivable possibilities for such subcats: Brahms & Schumann each wrote 3 piano sonatas (if I'm not mistaken); I think Ives only wrote two. (Haydn and Schubert wrote far more than 3, so hopefully, their subcats will be bulging with entries some day.) I much prefer to have a few small subcats like this than the visual clutter that would result if they were eliminated. Cgingold 14:02, 27 July 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Deceased Harry Potter characters[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. Due to the unanimity of this discussion and the timeliness of the spoilers, I decided to break protocol so that many people reading the book right now wouldn't be inconvenienced. (And no, I didn't read it.)--Mike Selinker 15:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per many previous discussions. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since my wife is currently reading our copy of Deathly Hallows, I can't even look at this category! But it's gotta go, regardless.--Mike Selinker 04:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Avara-kedara (I think it is). Johnbod 04:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fast as possible. We're not supposed to put spoilers in the categories. We're not supposed to categorize as alive/dead. Wryspy 06:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. And lol, it's Avada Kedavra. — *H ¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡ 06:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Avada Kedavra. -- Jelly Soup 06:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and block - Variants of this category have already been deleted already, mainly because the categories do not reflect the status of the characters throughout the fictional works and because the categories contain spoiler information. In this case, the spoiler information seems to be quite problematic. Dr. Submillimeter 07:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obliviate! What? Works just as well as Avada Kedavra here... -- Maijstral 10:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment True, but we don't just want this category to die, we want it to die and never ever come back. -- Jelly Soup 10:34, 23 July 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:English people by ethnic or national descent[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:English people by ethnic or national origin, since these are English people with non-English ancestry. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Speedy close - read the other open discussion on these categories please here, not to mention the category descriptions. (Since the other discussion has closed, we might as well continue this one). However someone seems to have been mixing up the two trees, which will need some sorting. Some or all parts of these have already been combined - what is needed is a demerge, not a merge. The reversions by the nominator seem to be part of the problem. But we should not have two discussions open on the same issue.Johnbod 04:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~:reject this nomination. Trying to prove a point, the point being no understanding of the difference between immigrants and emigrants. Hmains 02:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)~~ Hmains 03:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The point is, in fact, that Category:English people by ethnic or national descent is nearly identical in content to Category:English people by ethnic or national origin, and fits neither the pattern found in Category:People by ethnic or national origin or that of Category:People by ethnic or national descent. --Eliyak T·C 19:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge Sorry about above. I did not check this carefully enough; I was actually working on this merge! Category:English people by ethnic or national descent is incorrectly named per all the other categories for this purpose. Given the contents, it should be merged into Category:English people by ethnic or national origin, which is properly named (like all its sister categories), per the nomination. Hmains 03:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend closing nomation and reviewing the entire scheme This is one part of a much large category scheme that is already under discussion at cfd. That discussion does not appear to be headed for immediate consensus one way or another, so my suggestion is to step back and begin to consider what changes if any to make on the top level descent/origin categories to clarify nationality vs ethnicity and so on. Nominating just one subcategory won't work well because the whole thing needs to be considered consistently as a whole. Dugwiki 21:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~In general I agree, although these two do in fact have special issues, because of some edits muddying the usual scheme. Johnbod 22:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Changed to Merge per nom, hmains & EliyakKeep and clear-up Clearly these categories are not working as the rest of the scheme - but where are the categories for foreign people of English descent? Aren't there any? This would be surprising. I suspect there are some categories or articles buried in here somewhere. Rather than just merging, the categories for English people of foreign descent should be removed from the "English descent" category. If deleted, it should be without prejudice to a recreation populated with the correct type of articles, or there will be a conspicuous gap in the overall scheme. Johnbod 12:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment see Category:People of English descent which is named in the pattern of other similar categories. Hmains 03:57, 27 July 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.