Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 24
March 26 >

March 25[edit]

Disney[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus on Category:Mouseketeers, delete the others. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disney Imagineers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Disney executives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Disney parks and attractions executives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Mouseketeers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete all - similar to previously deleted categories for performers by performance, crew by project and performers by network, categorizing employees by company or job title is problematic because people can work for many different employers in the course of a career. "Mouseketeers" is purely performer by performance. No objection to listifying if people think it's warranted. Otto4711 22:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge to Category:Disney people. Listify if needed under Category:Lists of Disney people. Vegaswikian 00:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My concern with upmerging is that it's still the same sort of categorization but even less useful because it's so vague. Otto4711 01:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you suggesting that Category:Disney people also be deleted? Vegaswikian 23:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not at this time, although I do have some concerns over its persistent misuse to categorize voice actors who've worked for Disney and the like. My concern with merging, as I said, is that being a "Disney person" is more vague than being for example a "Disney executive" so it's a less useful categorization. If it's inappropriate to categorize an exec as a "Disney exec" becasue of the issues raised in the nom then it's also inappropriate to categorize them as the less-precise "Disney people" for the same reasons. Otto4711 14:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Keep "Disney executives", "Disney imagineers" and Mouseketeers. I don't see the problem with these categories since they do have a function. It is "Disney people" that truly needs an NPOV check and a succinct definition of which categories of people should be considered as such! Voice-actors should not be among those, unless one is recognised as a Disney Legend or being fulltime employed by Disney (such as Wayne Allwine.)RicJac 02:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mouseketeers because this role was notable as a springboard for many young performers. Delete the others. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mouseketeers and delete the others per Crotalus horridus. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, including Mouseketeers Note that while Mouseketeers might or might not be "notable" in the career of a performer, the bottom line is that the main article for the category already includes a comprehensive list of all the mouseketeers. So a reader actually interested in navigating articles about former Mouseketeers is more likely to do so from that article than to use the category system. Very similar to actor-by-tv-series categories which we've been deleting. Dugwiki 18:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, but Listify Mouseketeers. More useful to have this as a list, where years as Mouseketeers and further notability can be added alongside the names (thus making it easy to establish whether two notable ex-Mouseketeers appeared together, for instance). Grutness...wha? 00:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all including Mouseketeers since the list covers that better. >Radiant< 14:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mouseketeers. This is more of a statement of origin rather than a role, I think. The springboard argument works for me.--Mike Selinker 17:34, 2 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Gay porn stars (redux)[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Gay porn stars to Category:People appearing in gay pornography. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(This nomination was erroneously speedy closed as a duplicate of a nomination that I made and withdrew.)

Rename Category:Gay porn stars to Category:People appearing in gay pornography

  • Support as nominator:
    • Broadens the scope of the category—
      • includes people of all sexes (not all gay porn stars are men)
      • includes people of all professions—models, actors, etc. (there are "stars" who are only online)
      • includes all forms of gay pornography—film, print, or web (magazines, etc.)
    • Is clear about "gay" referring to "pornography", not the people
    • Is more compliant with Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View: "stars" is highly subjective; what makes someone a "star"?
I also propose that the main article for the category be Gay pornography rather than List of male performers in gay porn films—Chidom talk  21:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Gay porn performers to address the POV concerns of the word "star." I remain unconvinced that anyone will have any difficulty understanding the purpose of the category, especially if Gay pornography is made the lead article. It's for people in gay porn, not people in porn who are gay. If the performer is LGBT then they should also be categorized in the appropriate LGBT actor category. There is nothing in the category name now or if renamed to "performers" which would preclude including performers from any medium, although print-only performers are probably better categorized under Category:Adult models or an appropriate subcat. Otto4711 22:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Be convinced: consider this comment from February 23, 2007, on the talk page of List of male performers in gay porn films, even with after the renaming of that article, regarding individually sourcing each name on the list:
"Just stating that a person is gay (let alone that they star in gay porn) should be considered a highly controversial statement which demands a reliable source."
Obviously there are those who still read it as "gay performers", not performers in gay porn. The introduction to the article has always specifically stated since February 14, 2005, that "These men may or may not be gay themselves (see Gay-for-pay)". It doesn't get through; anything that will help do so is a good thing as far as I'm concerned. Also, this is an encyclopedia, where meanings should be crystal-clear and not open to debate or misunderstanding insofar as is possible. Like it or not, "gay porn performer" is ambiguous; English isn't a precise enough language to ensure that the modifier "gay" is seen to apply solely to "porn" rather than "performer" when used in this way.
Also, I deliberately chose "people appearing in" as opposed to "performers in" so as to be able to include people in gay porn who do not "perform"—largely models in magazines. I disagree that they should be categorized outside of a gay pornography category or a gay pornography subcategory. The category is still limited to those appearing in gay porn, however—directors of porn films, publishers of magazines, etc., wouldn't qualify for the category unless they had also appeared in porn (Chi Chi LaRue and Kristen Bjorn, having been in films, would qualify; to the best of my knowledge William Higgins has never appeared in gay porn and therefore wouldn't qualify for inclusion in the category.
The category is, as you say, "for people in gay porn, not people in porn who are gay"; what is the problem with making that as clear as possible? "For people in gay porn" sounds awfully like what I've proposed as the new name for the category.—Chidom talk  04:13, 26 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People executed under the Windsors[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete (and see also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007 March 28#Category:People executed under the Stuarts, et cetera). Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People executed under the Windsors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This appears to be a category for anyone subjected to capital punishment in the United Kingdom while a monarch from the House of Windsor was on the throne. The linkage between the House of Windsor and the deaths is a slight one and the category is fundamentally expressing a point of view that the House of Windsor is responsible for the deaths. Sam Blacketer 20:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rebuttal of above I certainly do not believe the House of Windsor are responsible for ANY of the deaths. It simply is not my point of viewAatomic1 17:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Rebuttal (2) of above Extract from Category member:
    •William Joyce, on 18 September 1939, and on numerous other days between 18 September 1939 and 30 April 1945 did aid and assist the enemies of the King by broadcasting to the King's subjects propaganda on behalf of the King's enemies.
    •William Joyce, on 26 September 1940, did aid and comfort the King's enemies by purporting to be naturalised as a German citizen.
    •William Joyce, on 18 September 1939, and on numerous other days between 18 September 1939 and 2 July 1940 did aid and assist the enemies of the King by broadcasting to the King's subjects propaganda on behalf of the King's enemies. --Aatomic1 18:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete if this category was devised for POV puposes, it should be removed promptly; if it is an attempt to categorise by era, then it should be deleted as a non-standard epoch. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Rebuttal of above (1) Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Act in good faith… assume good faith on the part of others. (2) The scope of the human past has naturally led scholars to divide that time into manageable pieces for study. There are a variety of ways in which the past can be dividedAatomic1 18:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply second point first: yes, there are indeed a variety of ways in which the past can be divided, but the question here is whether this is the most appropriate one, and how it correlates with other categories by era. And on the question of POV intentions: that did indeed look like a possibility, and I raised it only as a possibility (see that word "if"!) ... but the fact that this was part of an attempt to categorise all executions by era, and not just singling out the Windsors, makes that suspicion groundless. Sorry for not checking first. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the same editor has created a series of "People executed under the [Royal House]" categories. I don't know whether any of them are actually useful, but I suggest starting by deleting all that came after the Stuarts. After the Glorious Revolution, the monarch had little power in such matters, and I don't see any pupose in attaching the royal house to any executions after the 17th century. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Brown Haired Girl- ridiculous idea- much better to list by monarch up to say Charles I and by date range after that. Forbear 21:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above comment by BrownHairedGirl. Natalie West 21:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with that in general - but wouldn't the specific example lead to including Charles I among those executed under Charles I? Sam Blacketer 21:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • On second thoughts it might get a bit tedious to list by separate monarch- perhaps date range would be a much better replacement for all these new categories (i.e. People executed under the Anglo-Saxons, People executed under the Lancastrians etc.) especially as one monarch may favour an entirely different group to a predecessor from their own house. Forbear 21:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply to Sam: I don't think that Charlie was executed whilst still reigning: Parliament had taken over. But I think that Forbear is right: medieval monarchs ruled through shifting alliances (so unlike our dear King Tony!), so a category of executions-by-Royal House is meaningless. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BrownHairedGirl Nathanian 23:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete per Aatomic1 Part 1 … there is much to say
    I created the category. There existed a page ‘People executed BY the Tudors’ – It was too unwieldy to change and was incomplete; hence the creation of the category so I could constructively improve.
    Edward VI was only a boy when he became king so I thought BY was too strong and changed to UNDER…Likewise Henry III. Edward II may end up ‘executed under the Plantagenets’ depending on future academic debate about execution/ murder. Yes Charles I may well end up ‘executed under the Stuarts’ – I don’t have a POV.
    I needed the other categories to split up an unwieldy group English Executions for the purposes of my own historical research (I have created William of Eu; cleaned up Waltheof; Linked William Fitz Osbern, to Tyburn; have satisfied my initial historical enquiry –whether hanging, drawing and quartering did take place during the Interregnum. I have much I want to learn – The Spanish Inquisition and Book burning spring to mind; possibly even the Cultural revolution!
    ‘I don't know whether any of them are actually useful’ … Yes you don’t know; do you care if others find them useful?...or is it YOUR POV that others should not have this knowledge?
    I certainly do not believe the House of Windsor are responsible for ANY of the deaths. It simply is not my point of view. I want to study the historic patterns of executions towards the end of Capital Punishment in England. The Saxe-Coburg / Windsor cut off is pertinent re Irish Revolutionaries and Soldiers Shot for Cowardice. How did the change of mind set affect these issues? Yes it may well be irrelevant for other issues such the shooting of Spies. I am quite happy for the non-standard epoch to be changed to a ‘standard epoch’ (I missed that one in A-level History). Any change WILL result in the destruction of knowledge. I consider myself a newbie to Wiki technology (..NOT to History) so I don’t know how much your politics will affect my research.
    ..Sorry I have got to go to bed now (Aatomic1 00:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)).[reply]
    • Reply Aatomic1, a change will not result in the destruction of knowledge, but in a change to the organisation of knowledge. I don't know why you assume that my objections are political; they are in fact historical. My concern is that if wikipedia is to categorise articles by historical era, then it should do so in a consistent way, and I don't think that this is the most useful way of categorising British history in the early modern and modern periods. The Hanoverians, for example, cover both the 18th and 19th centuries, which are radically different periods. Similarly, if the early twentieth century is to be divided, then the conventional historical division is based on World War I, which brought about major changes in British society; the renaming of the royal family had little bearing on wider social history. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Firstly, Let me apologise if you believed ‘political’ was aimed jointly and severably at you. I am still finding my feet.
    • In Reply The scope of the human past has naturally led scholars to divide that time into manageable pieces for study. There are a variety of ways in which the past can be divided Aatomic1 17:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - similar categories seem to exist for all England's royal houses, so this isn't singling out one particular dynasty. A disclaimer that the monarchs in question may not have been directly responsible for all such deaths should suffice. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in current form. Grouping by royal house is flawed for at least two reasons. Firstly, from the 1700s on, the royal family had little if anything to do with executions, so this is simply categorising by a combination of two unrelated criteria. Secondly, this makes no reference whatsoever to location. All British colonies and many independent imperial/commonwealth nations can be regarded as "under the house of X" - hangings in 19th-century New South Wales or 17th-century Virginia could easily be included according to the category titles. Having said that, I would have no objection to reclassifying by century or other more relevant criteria, as long as it is specified that these are within the United Kingdom (thus, for example, I would accept Category:20th century executions in the United Kingdom as a perfectly acceptable category). Grutness...wha? 05:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Prisoners subjected to capital punishment should not be listed like this. If this is a historically important topic, then an article with both an explanation and a list of executed people would be more appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 09:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rebuttal of above This is a historically important topic to the contributors to Capital punishment in the United Kingdom. There is a list there. To complete the list with all permutations and combinations would take months/ years. Accessing the categories, however, provides more up to date, reliable and user specific access to information. --Aatomic1 17:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no connection in this case between the royal house and the executions so the category is pointless. --kingboyk 12:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rebuttal of aboveExtract from Category member:
      •William Joyce, on 18 September 1939, and on numerous other days between 18 September 1939 and 30 April 1945 did aid and assist the enemies of the King by broadcasting to the King's subjects propaganda on behalf of the King's enemies.
      •William Joyce, on 26 September 1940, did aid and comfort the King's enemies by purporting to be naturalised as a German citizen.
      •William Joyce, on 18 September 1939, and on numerous other days between 18 September 1939 and 2 July 1940 did aid and assist the enemies of the King by broadcasting to the King's subjects propaganda on behalf of the King's enemies. (Aatomic1 16:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)).[reply]
      • Reply All crimes in the UK are prosecuted in the name of the crown, and the government acts in the name of the crown. However, for these purposes "the crown" has long since ceased to mean "the monarch": it means, effectively, "His Majesty's Government" or "The King taking the advice of his government". King George V would not have been involved in the prosecution of William Joyce; if his signature was required for any such purposes, he is constitutionally required to accept the advice of ministers. The King is irrelevant for all except ceremonial purposes, and if you check the article on (for example) Derek Bentley, you will see that the power to pardon rests in practice with the Home Secretary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • ReplyCrown and King have separate and distinct Wiki pagesAatomic1 17:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category implies that the Windsors have people executed like Henry VIII, which simply isn't true. User:Casperonline|Casperonline]] 01:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unnecessary category. Is there a category for people executed under George W. Bush? No. Doczilla
    • Rebuttal of above George W. Bush is American!! Aatomic1 09:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - I fully agree with everything written by Brown Haired Girl, but would add.....the implied link here is that a family was sat in a seat of power, and had a hand/significant role in executing these people. Simply untrue, as the court system handles those decisions by this time. So no link = no need for category. Rgds, - Trident13 23:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rebuttal of above. The above is merely wishful thinking. I have added the following to the category's discussion page.
      The Royal Prerogative is a body of customary authority… recognised … as belonging to the Crown alone. It is the means by which some of the executive powers of government are possessed by …a monarch.
      Among the powers possessed by the monarch in the United Kingdom under the Royal Prerogative are:
  • Delete Royal houses have no political implications in the modern era. There is is no logical reason to have such a category, rather than, or in addition to, "British people executed in the 1940s" or whatever. I became aware of this category because Aatomic1 added Patrick Stanley Vaughan Heenan to it. In the first place, Heenan was convicted and shot in Singapore, so the remove from George VI is rather pronounced. Second, Heenan's execution was extrajudicial --- he was convicted of treason, but was not sentenced and was shot on the iniative or one or two military policemen. Grant | Talk 08:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rebuttal of above The penalty for treason was changed from death to a maximum of imprisonment for life in 1998 under the Crime And Disorder Act. Before 1998, the death penalty was mandatory, subject to the royal prerogative of mercy. Aatomic1 10:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Heenan was convicted and shot in Singapore, so how is the remove from George VI rather pronounced? Aatomic1 10:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Aatomic1, please urgently read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines to learn how to participate in talkn pages. I don't want to discourage you from participating in the discussion, but the way you are formatting your comments is making the discussion very hard to follow. I have just done some reformatting, but please try to follow the guidelines in future. Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • New CFD: see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007_March_28#Category:People_executed_under_the_Saxe-Coburgs, where I have proposed renaming Category:People executed under the Saxe-Coburgs to Category:20th century executions by the United Kingdom. My idea is that the effect would be to merge this category and Category:People executed under the Saxe-Coburgs into a single twentieth-century category, but I think that this CFD is too far advanced for a merger proposal here to be helpful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. It's an inherent - and therefore misleading - linkage of two things that are not connected in any meaningful sense. Nick Cooper 17:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Rebuttal of aboveIt's an inherent linkage of two things that are meaningfully connected - and therefore misleading to delete. Aatomic1 17:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply There is no meaningful connection, because the monarch has no say in whether a person is executed or not. It is about as logical as having a category for "People executed when there was an 'R' in the month"! Nick Cooper 22:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply>•William Joyce, on 18 September 1939, and on numerous other days between 18 September 1939 and 30 April 1945 did aid and assist the enemies of the King by broadcasting to an 'R' in the month’s subjects propaganda on behalf of the an 'R' in the month’s enemies.
•William Joyce, on 26 September 1940, did aid and comfort an 'R' in the month's enemies by purporting to be naturalised as a German citizen.
•William Joyce, on 18 September 1939, and on numerous other days between 18 September 1939 and 2 July 1940 did aid and assist the enemies of an 'R' in the month by broadcasting an 'R' in the month's subjects propaganda on behalf of the an 'R' in the month's enemies.
...Hmm not the most convincing of stances. Aatomic1 17:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be deliberately missing the point. Nick Cooper 22:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Cooper, Please desist from the inaccurate editing of my comments in future.The above comment is personal, ungrounded and not related to the subject matter. Aatomic1 08:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aatomic1, please stop repeatedly splatting the same large block of text into this discussion; it is disruptive and unnecessary. Nick Cooper is quite right that you are missing the point: all that this quote demonstrates is that Joyce was prosecuted in the name of the crown, but the point repeatedly made is that the monarch had no involvement in Joyce's prosecution or execution ... and therefore the royal house is irrelevant. I you were to walk down an English street and beat up a police officer, you too would be prosecuted in the name of the crown, but is highly unlikely that the monarch would ever hear of your existence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl, please urgently read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Assume good faith - Keep on topic- Be positive-Stay objective-Deal with facts-Bolded text,-No insults- ie why did you refer to the beating up of a Policemen in the second person as opposed to Wiki's beloved third person - hey one could even have used the first person -Don't misrepresent other people - even by association. There have been continued POV assumptions and more than one personal attack; AND the above has edited by comments AND continued biting of a newbie. Thankfully there is some sanity in the other Monarchy CfDs - I did not comment as I have no complaints. Aatomic1 22:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied on my talk page, to avoid further disruption to this CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category makes an implied claim that members of the royal family are directly responsible for the deaths of people executed in the last 90 years of so, which is just not the case. Choalbaton 21:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reorganise by century or whatever but don't just delete & lose the grouping. Btw the assumption of several editors that there is a POV issue here, or an attempt to impute personal responsibility to any monarch, seems completely ludicrous to me. Breaking English/British history down into dynastic periods is a perfectly normal traditional thing to do, if now a bit old-fashioned. In many ways it works better than centuries, as at least some changes of dynasty did themselves produce major changes. Johnbod 01:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that by-dynasty categorisation of historical events is useful in some cases before the English Civil War, but I can't think any other situation where I have seen it used for the twentieth century, except when the subject directly involves the monarchy, which this doesn't. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • Strong delete having read all the above. No reply is called for. - Kittybrewster (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Which Royal House occupies the throne has no bearing on executions in the 20th century and it is not normal practice to break modern history down into dynastic periods. There is no loss of information here if the cat is deleted since the entries will just be transferred to the more appropriate and useful category, 20th century executions by the United Kingdom. -- Necrothesp 16:41, 4 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Luxembourgian people[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename all. --Xdamrtalk 14:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename While Wikipedia's list of adjectivals and demonyms for countries and nations calls for using just Luxembourg as an adjective, only two of the existing categories do, rather they use either Luxembourgish or Luxembourgian. However, a check of both merriam-webster.com and dictionary.com (Random House) indicates that Luxembourgish is the language and Luxembourgian is the adjective. The online AHD at bartlebys.com, and my 1962 hard copy of Merriam-Webster's New Twentieth Century, Second Edition indicate that using plain Luxembourg as the adjective form is an older usage. So let's rename the categories pertaining to the people of Luxembourg to use Luxembourgian where they don't already and update the entry in the list to reflect current usage. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. As a result of those dictionary usages cited, this is the rule adopted by WikiProject Luxembourg; 'Luxembourgish' for the language, 'Luxembourgian' for the adjective, and 'Luxembourger(s)' for the demonym. Besides clearing up this whole stylistic mess, the clarification of this point will allow for such categories as 'Category:Luxembourgish media' to be used for their proper purposes, i.e. media outlets broadcasting in Luxembourgish. Bastin 22:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
If you haven't noticed, Category:Luxembourgish media is included in the list of categories to be renamed. Valentinian T / C 21:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hence why I cited it as one of the advantages of this proposal. :) Bastin 10:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
So effectively we'll get two categories used for different purposes. Ok, just wanted to make sure. :) Valentinian T / C 10:15, 27 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Organisations in Oxfordshire[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Organisations in Oxfordshire into Category:Organisations based in Oxfordshire. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Organisations in Oxfordshire to Category:Organisations based in Oxfordshire
  • Merge, in line with the usual practice of sorting organisations by the locality where they are based, not by every location in which they are present. Hawkestone 16:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Casperonline 01:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. This needs doing for Hampshire & West Sussex too. Verica Atrebatum 08:56, 31 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Visionaries[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, due to subjective inclusion criterion. -- Prove It (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as subjective, and incapable of more precise definition. Categ contains only one article, Rod Beckstrom, created by the same editor who created the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BHG. -- TedFrank 17:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "Visionary" is a vague term. People should be categorized by their professions instead. Dr. Submillimeter 21:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inherently subjective. Pascal.Tesson 15:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Choalbaton 21:39, 28 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Mountains of Ireland and subcats[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Mountains of Ireland to Category:Mountains and hills of Ireland, Category:Mountains of the Republic of Ireland to Category:Mountains and hills of the Republic of Ireland, and "Mountains of X" to "Mountains and hills of County X". The Longford and Westmeath categories will be similarly treated. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:
Nominator's Rationale: for consistency with Category:Mountains and hills of Northern Ireland and its subcats, and with similar categories for the UK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to conventions of Category:Mountains by country. -- Prove It (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is appropriate in GB & I, where true mountains are somewhat rare. Articles about British and Irish hills are many. Hawkestone 16:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Checking further, it looks like this is the right thing to do, even though it doesn't quite match. -- Prove It (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment see also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 23#Category:Mountains_and_hills_of_Leinster (proposed deletion of by-province categories). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with caveat. Would prefer those where cities and counties have the same name to be renamed to (for example) Category:Mountains and hills of County Dublin - IIRC this would also apply to Cork, Limerick, and Tipperary. Grutness...wha? 06:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most Irish counties are named after an eponymous county town (though most are not cities), so it would also apply to counties Cavan, Donegal, Galway, Sligo, Wicklow, Waterford, and Wexford. For clarity, I suggest adopting the consistent format of "Mountains and hills of County xxx", but if we decide to adopt that format, it should really be used for all Irish county categories. I would support it if there is agreement to roll it out across the rest of he Irish county categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course. I should have remembered that, especially since my ancestors came from one of the most insignificant and underpopulated counties in the country (Co. Roscommon). Grutness...wha? 00:32, 27 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Companies Listed on the Pink Sheets[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Companies Listed on the Pink Sheets to Category:Companies listed on the Pink Sheets. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Companies Listed on the Pink Sheets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete I can't think of any purpose this category serves other than advertising Pink Sheets, which as the article says is a commercial brokerage service, and not a stock exchange. Wilchett 15:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Hawkestone 16:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is automatically added by {{Pinksheets}}. It is a valid and well know service. It is one of the many Category:Ticker symbol templates series of templates. Vegaswikian 19:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not here to promote such services, whether well known or otherwise. Nathanian 23:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Pink Sheets is a stock market - the only market where the stock of notable (albiet bankrupt) companies such as Delta Air Lines and Northwest Airlines can be traded. Yes, it is a commercial enterprise, owned by a company, but so is the NASDAQ - and the NASDAQ is not a stock exchange either - it is a stock market. Categorizing public companies by the primary market (or markets) where their stock trades is a well-established Wikipedia practice. UnitedStatesian 04:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Pink Sheets article says it is not a stock market. Hawkestone 12:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please quote accurately: the article reads (and has always read) "it is not a stock exchange." There is a critical difference under U.S. securities law between a stock exchange (like the NYSE) and a stock market (like Nasdaq and the Pink Sheets) UnitedStatesian 13:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not an advertisement. ~ BigrTex 16:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • and rename to conform with capitalization of peer categories (lowercase L). ~ BigrTex 14:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per UnitedStatesian jwillburtalk 23:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whether or not it is an advertisement, it links companies with nothing essential in common. There is no reason why it would be more enlightening to browse from one of these articles to another of them than to a company on a different stock whatever. Casperonline 01:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that it is a defining characteristic of these companies. Companies with articles on Wikipedia would generally be trading on Pink Sheets because they cannot maintain the requirements (stock price, liquidity, etc) required to trade on NASDAQ or NYSE. The question is whether the location where their stock is traded is the defining characteristic, or is based on the defining characteristic - failure to meet the requirements of higher prestige trading locations. ~ BigrTex 16:01, 27 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Baseball prospects[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mike Selinker (talk • contribs).

Category:Baseball prospects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - category is for college-level ballplayers or players who are "otherwise in contention" for joining MLB. We already have objective categories for college players and for minor league players, which together should cover the vast majority of players who might appear here. Indeed, many of the articles in the category are already categorized under one of those two cats. This category requires the subjective judgment of editors in determining whether the player is a prospect or not. Otto4711 14:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as crystal-ball gazing. This sort of category would be valid (though not necessarily useful or appropriate) if there was some sort of objectively-defined "MLB candidate" status, but there isn't. If this topic merits coverage (and I have my doubts), it should should be covered through one or more properly-sourced articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree that this is a "crystal ball" category. These types of "guessing the future" categories should be avoided. Dr. Submillimeter 20:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Minor league baseball players. Most of these are there already, and all of them can be. (I created this category, and I have no reason for it to stick around.)--Mike Selinker 21:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As After Midnight notes below, I was wrong: They're all in Minor league baseball players. So delete.--Mike Selinker 19:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - none of the entries in this catgory meet the criteria (but propbaly used to). They are all in Minor leage players, so no need to merge. --After Midnight 0001 14:52, 3 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Baseball families[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baseball families (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Bell family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Boone family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Hairston family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete all - similar to the recently completed CFD for sports broadcasting families. The familial relationships should be noted through interlinking the articles for the various family members rather than through an eponymous category which is unnecessary for navigation. This category has the additional problem of being used as a dump for any baseball player who's related to another baseball player, resulting in a categorization of hundreds of unrelated people under a category for "families." There is a list article linked in the main category and that strikes me as a better scheme for capturing the information (although there should be no listification requirement before deleting these categories). Otto4711 14:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - At the moment, almost any professional baseball player who has a parent or a child in baseball is listed in Category:Baseball families, which simply does not make sense given the category's title. For example, this gives the impression that Hank Aaron is somehow related to José Canseco. Even if the category renamed more appropriately and used to indicate people with children or parents in baseball, this still does not seem appropriate. This type of categorization is not done for other professions (e.g. Category:Lawyer families) nor should it be done, as it simply contributes to category clutter. As for the individual family categories, they seem unnecessary. The small number of articles in each category could be linked through the text to show the familial relationships. Dr. Submillimeter 19:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was already put up a couple weeks ago and the result was to keep hockey families and baseball families etc etc in favour of removing NHL families or MLB families. --Djsasso 23:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The previous discussion started as a discussion about merging categories, not deleting categories. A discussion devoted to deletion is still appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 09:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Doesn't change the fact that those people who voted to merge the other cats into this one obviously thought this one should still exist or they would have simply voted to delete instead of merge. --Djsasso 15:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - the fact is that of the eight people who expressed an opinion in the earlier CFD, five of them wanted to delete all of the categories including the target categories. Otto4711 05:26, 29 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sutton family[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sutton family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete per the CFD of the parent category and the other subcats, family relationships of this nature should be noted through links in the various articles and this, like many other eponymous categories, does not have the level of material that requires categorization rather than interlinking. Otto4711 14:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - We already decided that categorizing family members like this is not worthwhile. We also do not need a category to indicate the relationship between Daron Sutton and Don Sutton when this could be stated in the text. Dr. Submillimeter 19:51, 25 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sesame Street crew[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sesame Street crew (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete per massive consensus against people by project categories. Crew of Sesame Street is far more comprehensive. Otto4711 13:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per other people-by-project categories, which cause category clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • Delete - We have already established that we should not categorize people by project like this. The resulting lists of categories are too long to read for most professional entertainers. Dr. Submillimeter 19:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedents. Doczilla 21:54, 26 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Simpsons producers[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Simpsons producers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete per all the many CFDs establishing consensus against categorizing people by project. Prior to the nomination I listified the contents of the category here. Otto4711 13:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per other people-by-project categories, which cause unnecessary category clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wimstead 14:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Am I the only one who thinks its insane not to have Matt Groening or James L. Brooks in any sort of Simpsons related category? And don't say "Just put it in the normal Simpsons category" because the person subcategories were created to CLEAN UP The Simpsons category. It's nice to see that we're getting rid of USEFUL categories to make crappy, uninformed articles like this. -- Scorpion 17:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I would say that you're the only one who thinks it's insane. There is strong consensus against categorizing people by projects because of the large number of projects a person can work on in the course of a career. Groening could be in writer, director, producer, composer and actor categories for The Simpsons TV show, similar categories for the upcoming Simpsons film and similar categories for Futurama. Does he really need a dozen categories to describe his involvement with two TV shows and a movie? By the way, you've made your opposition to this sort of thing clear already. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia by removing listify tags from categories as you did here and here to make a point. Otto4711 17:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And to answer your question about the list articles that result...yes, the list articles start out rough because they are copy-and-pasted from the categories, so they consist of nothing but the alphabetical list of names. That allows for subject matter experts to annotate the lists by, for example, adding links to the episodes directed by each member of the list, something that the category system can't accomplish. Otto4711 17:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not merge all the categories and have one, say Category:The Simpsons cast and crew? -- Scorpion 17:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have already had this discussion here and there does not in the intervening weeks appear to have been any shift in the consensus against the categorization. Otto4711 17:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the members of these categories should not be put into Category:The Simpsons either because that is still categorization by project against consensus. Otto4711 17:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We have already established that we should not categorize people by project like this. The resulting lists of categories are too long to read for most professional entertainers. Dr. Submillimeter 19:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per many, many precedents. Doczilla 08:20, 27 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Capture Categories[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamrtalk 14:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Screen Capture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Video Capture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I believe that the usefulness of the two categories is non existant, a similar list was deleted last Feburary (see AfD discussion), I believe that similar reasons apply in these cases, that and the categories would not be greatly lost. NigelJ talk 10:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete per nom. Apart from being under-populated, these categs are orphaned, and appear to have been create solely to categorise the Growler Guncam page. The reason I say weak delete is that I can see that categories relating to those technologies might be appropriate if properly organised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other capture programs seem to be assigned to other software categories, also, I'm sure most screen/video capture programs do not meet the notability criteria, notable programs can be categorized in far better suited categories than the ones I've nominated for deletion, I'm sure on that. --NigelJ talk 00:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. (If this somehow survives CfD, fix capitalization.) Doczilla 08:21, 27 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Israeli casualties during the First Intifada[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Israeli casualties during the First Intifada into Category:Israeli casualties. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Israeli casualties during the First Intifada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category contains one entry only, and that entry is questionable as the young lady was "shot by her own side" so to speak (and whether she's notable or not is debateable too). kingboyk 10:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge to Category:Israeli casualties. It seems irrelevant to the category's validity whether the woman's death was at Isralii or Palestinian hands, but the fact that there is only one article is sufficient. I was surprised by the lack of any categories for Palestinian casualties of the conflicts, and I wouldn't object to this category being recreated if it was part of a viable scheme of categories for casualties or the Israeli-Palestinain conflicts(s). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This category is far more informative than one which does not refer to a specific confict, and people are unlikely to have been casualties in more than one conflict, so the category tags will not multiply. Wimstead 14:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge almost unpopulated category per BrownHairedGirl. Doczilla 08:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and populate. The category for the other Intifada is much better populated. The two were quite separate events, and there is no more reason to merge them than to have a combined category called Category:World War I and World War II. Postlebury 14:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, overly specific. >Radiant< 14:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per above. --After Midnight 0001 15:08, 3 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Gay porn stars[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy close as duplicate nomination. Please see open CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March_23#Category:Gay_porn_stars --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Gay porn stars to Category:People appearing in gay pornography

  • Support as nominator. Broadens the scope of the category:
    • includes people of all sexes
    • includes people of all professions—models, actors, etc.
    • includes all forms of gay pornography—film, print, or web
    • is clear about "gay" referring to "pornography", not the people
I would also propose that the main article for the category be Gay pornography rather than List of male performers in gay porn films.—Chidom talk  04:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It doesn't mean the same thing at all. 70.235.18.217 08:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close - you already have an open CFD here from two days ago. Why have you listed it again here? Otto4711 11:12, 25 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wars France lost[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wars France lost (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. No other countries have categories for wars lost, only France. France has been singled out. This category amounts to French bashing. Also any category for ‘wars lost’ regardless of country, only stirs up trouble. Furthermore, many countries have a ‘battles involving’ category – this category is also redundant. Bryson 04:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Within the context of French military history" - Very interesting, but I would say if you're going down this path, a category of "Wars France won" would be even more relevant, given the fact that states and kingdoms relating to France and the nation-state of France itself have and has won more military conflicts than they and it have and has lost, problems involving definitions aside for a moment.UberCryxic 17:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not withstanding any "strong," burning appeals to the contrary. Unoriginal, unimaginative, tasteless: As far as lowbrow attacks on the French military record go, this is vin ordinaire. And in case we're supposed to take Reid1867's air of injured innocence seriously, I'll point out that the category fails utterly to add to the ease of browsing articles or finding new information (wars can only be "won" or "lost", making this only marginally more useful than Category:Successful NASA space flights or Category:Crimes committed at night) Frankly, Reid, given the wide currency of thinly-veiled, psuedo-historical anti-French smears, I think the question of why France (surprise, surprise!) was singled out for this little experiment of yours is rather fair. Seriously, why not Austria, or Italy, or Peru? We've had quite enough of your flavour of "valid historical subject." Albrecht 07:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; pointless, impossible to maintain, and inherently POV (imagine if we had Category:Wars America lost - there would be endless fights over whether we should include Vietnam, the War of 1812, etc.) Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 07:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's historically accurate. That's good enough for me. :) -- Voldemort 08:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a bizarre, silly way to categorize wars (or just about anything). As pointed out above, this looks like an attack category on French people. It may also be difficult to identify wars which France "lost". I imagine that France has reached some military stalemates or may have negotiated unfavorable peace treaties in some wars. (Also, imagine related silly categories for other things, such as sports. I imagine that the list in Category:Games lost by the Arizona Cardinals would be fairly lengthy.) Dr. Submillimeter 08:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As far as I'm concerned it's no more bizarre and silly than "Category:Wars involving France". The wars a nation has lost are a part of its military history and the military history of France is a genuine subject in Wikipedia. -- Freemarket 10:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV category. Also, winning or losing is not always a clearcut matter in war. Mowsbury 10:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As an Englishman it would be remiss of me not to say "but Category:Wars France won is empty!" (that's a joke) but really this is a POV category and as Mowsbury said "winning or losing is not always a clearcut matter in war". --kingboyk 11:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mowsbury as an attack category which is also misleading, because "winning or losing is not always a clearcut matter in war". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's hard to accept that this category was created in good faith. Wimstead 14:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see this as being useful. -- Prove It (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolute Delete This is a damn travesty. Is someone kidding here? Why do we even need a vote for this? I'm sure someone can take a very reasonable executive decision and get rid of the damn thing immediately.UberCryxic 15:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried a speedy delete at first, but User:xaosflux removed it and told me to take it to Categories for discussion. --Bryson 16:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subjective and POV. Hawkestone 16:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, overly simplistic way of looking at complex events. Kirill Lokshin 16:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As someone else has pointed out, it's historically accurate. Therefore in no way pov. -- HowardDean 18:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with that, aside from everything else, is that it's not accurate; collapsing the complex result of a war to a binary "won/lost" choice is often a gross oversimplification of the actual historical facts. Kirill Lokshin 19:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I can offer a specific example of what Kirill means. One of the wars that the category included was the War of the Spanish Succession. The French suffered many defeats in the earlier and middle parts of this war, but by the end they, alongside the Spanish, were winning virtually on all fronts. In the end, the Bourbons managed to get Philip on the throne of Spain, which so much of Europe had fought against France to prevent. This is one result when the outcome is not a clear "win" or "lose." What's stated in the result section of the infobox also encompasses that complexity: "Treaty of Utrecht: Philip accepted as King of Spain by renouncing French throne; some Spanish territories partitioned."UberCryxic 20:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be frank (or Frank), the "it's accurate so it can't be POV" line of argument is so palpably wrong and disingenuous that his attitude toward the whole question should be marked as extremely suspect. And even if one were to accept won/lost as an adequate descriptive label, the usefulness of creating a category to distinguish between only two possible outcomes remains highly questionable. Albrecht 21:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This category cannot help but be subjective. It was applied to the War of Spanish Succession, for example. Some would say that since the French candidate for the Spanish crown was installed (and his descendant reigns today) the French won. Others would say that since French expansionism in Europe was checked, and subsequently subsided, France lost. Winning and losing a war is not a yes/no question in many cases. Coemgenus 19:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Coemgenus, Kirill Lokshin, Hawkestone, et al. Simplistic, subjective, not useful, and confusing. Not helpful at all. --MPD T / C 21:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Au revoir to this one. Looks like a rather poor joke. Valentinian T / C 21:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A joke used out of its proper context. Nathanian 23:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as WP:SNOW. This really should have been a WP:CSD#G10 and it's frankly silly that we're dragging it out like this. — coelacan — 04:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see it as a joke. It's a completely valid category. You people that have a problem with the subject matter should simply create a category for the few wars that France has actually won for balance. -- Crevaner 04:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it isn't valid, as UberCryxic and Kirill Lokshin have already demonstrated. Unless you can answer the issues they've raised, your not-a-vote isn't making any contribution toward a consensus for your view. — coelacan — 05:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and WP:DAFT per all the above. Grutness...wha? 06:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete historically accurate is not the issue here. Of course, we could have an accurate category for French wars which started in March, that however does not make it of any interest. Pascal.Tesson 15:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is just the "French military victories" google joke converted into a category. Dominictimms 17:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Where actually debating this? Oh well, an exercise in democracy in action.--Dryzen 18:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The statement that the category is an "overly simplistic way of looking at complex events" is historically inaccurate. Most wars ARE won or lost. That should be categorised in an encyclopædia. Someone will eventually create a "wars France won" category and that's alright. -- AndrewBartlett 20:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually quite ridiculous as there are many wars in human history that have not even been documented properly enough. Even with those that have, it's always nice to maintain a proper sense of context. It's not really interesting who "won" or "lost;" by themselves, those are just quasi-meaningless words with barely any ontological significance. With wars, military campaigns, and their relation to societies at large, it's always far more indicative of historical trends to look at objectives accomplished and those not accomplished. Plus, your standard still doesn't resolve the dispute above. Who's to say whether conflicts like the War of the Spanish Succession belong in this category? France has had a very long military history and if you do not resolve that issue, we could be having arguments on this for years.UberCryxic 21:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be delighted to hear how a normative statement can be judged on "historically accuracy," least of all by someone so far removed from the nuances, complexities, and contradictions of the historical record. Reid1867's already stated your case to keep—the sum of which is zero—and an argument that has no real foundation won't regain ground by just because confused value-voters can't think of anything better to say. I might also add that as far as I'm aware, the only editors present who have extensively studied French military history, formally or informally, are Kirill, Uber, and myself (and the former two in particular are well known for meticulous research and impressive knowledge and comprehension), so I'd question the value of pumping out non-votes from people whose userboxes show them to be neocons and whose contributions reveal zero knowledge of the relevant historical or historiographical literature. I'm relieved to find that not a few disinterested editors were able to see this for what it was: A poor man's Google bomb joke, badly disguised as a categorization effort and matched only by the farcical "debate" that followed it. Albrecht 23:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you wouldn't resort to attacking the motives of the "keep" voters; it only weakens our argument. I think we've made the case for delete rather strongly already without attributing a malign agenda to people who disagree with us. And I hardly think that supporting Stephen Harper makes someone a "neoconservative" or a Francophobe. Coemgenus 12:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a disreputable category, inaccurate, simplistic, not part of a wider structure, and with an obvious bias that the user pages of the people who want to keep it only confirm. Casperonline 01:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is fairly obvious by now that this category's chance of survival is about the same as a snowball's chance in Hell. In the extremely unlikely scenario that it survives, please bear in mind that this would consequently result in a similar less-than-flattering category grouping the Battle of the Alamo, Bay of Pigs and similar "incidents" in U.S. history. I somehow doubt that any such change would meet a fanfare of support from either readers or editors. It wouldn't be either encyclopedic, useful or NPOV either. Just wrap this case up and let's get back to some more serious work. Valentinian T / C 10:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reasons clearly articulated several times above.ALR 15:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inaccurate and biased. The users who wish to keep this would be on firmer ground if one of them had also created Category:Wars the United States lost. Postlebury 15:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who the heck emptied the category against the rules? I'm half tempted to !vote keep just because it's impossible to make this determination. It might be a very valid cat (e.g., Seven Years War), but now who knows if the category has been abused to push POV? Patstuarttalk·edits 01:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - upon further consideration, the arguments given at WP:WPMMILHST are correct; talking about wars which a country lost can be too subjective. Who lost the War of 1812? Is the United States losing in Iraq right now (that's a loaded question to which I think the answer is no, BTW; I mention this because most people think it's yes, and shows that POV is too involved). Patstuarttalk·edits 03:07, 31 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_25&oldid=1136463512"