Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 23 December 25 >

December 24[edit]

Category:LGBT television episodes[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. Timrollpickering 11:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT television episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I think it's just way too broad and possibly hard to define. I can think of like, 50 Buffy episodes and a million Simpsons/South Park/Drawn Together/Family Guy/American Dad! ones. Not really useful for LGBT studies, either. ~ZytheTalk to me! 18:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - "This article (sic) refers to television episodes where the storyline focuses on either LGBT themes or on a LGBT character." Seems pretty easy to define and indeed is defined. Refine the cat further to exclude entire series such as Noah's Arc or the two incarnations of Queer as Folk (which are properly categorized elsewhere). Otto4711 20:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is already List of television episodes with LGBT themes which handles this subject better than any category could. Just because something can become a category does not mean that it would be better suited as a category. This is one of those cases. The list can be linked to any appropriate article if and when the article discusses LGBT episodes, or in a "See also" section. -- Samuel Wantman 20:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list was designed to capture very special episode-type episodes. The category is for episodes which focus on LGBT themes but not limited to VSEs. Otto4711 13:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the list is better. Categorizing TV episodes by whatever theme happens to be present in them is trivia. >Radiant< 10:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything LGBT-related that you don't think is trivia? Seems like every time an LGBT topic is put up for discussion and you weigh in on it, you want it deleted as trivia. Otto4711 13:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's not integral to the plot, then it's trivial. It's not homophobia, I'm LGBT myself - it's just getting rid of a useless category.~ZytheTalk to me! 14:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the sexuality issue being integral to the plot of the episode is rather the bloody point, isn't it? The category is not for episodes that happen to have gay folks in them. It's for episodes that have gay people or themes as the focus of the ep. So to use a concrete example, not every episode of Friends where Ross's ex-wife appears would be included but the episode of Friends where Ross's ex-wife marries her female partner would be. The former would be trivial, but should never be included in the first place. Tis category isn't like a category for, say, episodes about having two dates for the big dance or whatever other staple of sitcom plotting you can think of. This is for those exceedingly rare episodes with deal with sexuality issues as a central theme. Perhaps at some point in the future such episodes will be so commonplace that a category wouldn't be needed. For now such eps are rare enough that an encyclopedic gathering of them is justifiable. Otto4711 14:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But then justifying inclusion becomes POV! An article on a website other than Wikipedia should attempt this as an essay, by all means. ~ZytheTalk to me! 23:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good christ, are Wikipedians not to be trusted to exercise common sense and halfway decent judgment? Do you think we're all so hopelessly mired in our points of view that we can't figure out when an episode focuses on queer content and when it doesn't? Aren't there enough categories that have actual problems to worry about before we start going after the ones that don't? Otto4711 02:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Categorizing television episodes by theme is a spectacularly bad idea, when some episodes have many and it is so subjective. The fact that this is the theme that has been singled out reflects systemic bias. Sumahoy 16:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, the notion that categorizing a subject matter that has been rare almost to the point of non-existence throughout the history of television is "systemic bias" is nonsense. Otto4711 19:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So presumably you can list many other types of "rare almost to the point of non-existence" subject matter that also have television episode categories? Or even common types of subject matter that also have television episode categories? Wimstead 21:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I'm not interested in doing the necessary research. And that still has no bearing on the properness of this category. Otto4711 13:23, 27 December 2006 (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:Muslim Islamic scholars[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. Timrollpickering 10:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Muslim Islamic scholars to Category:Muslim scholars of Islam
I believe the closing admin overlooked it, however, I might just be stupid. If I'm missing something obvious, the category will be moved before this CfR closes anyway and it'll be moot. — coelacan talk — 05:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Wimstead 21:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the current one is almost redundant.Bakaman 19:23, 28 December 2006 (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:Video games that feature celebrity likenesses[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. Timrollpickering 10:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games that feature celebrity likenesses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Trivial, not a defining characteristic. Combination 11:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --AshadeofgreyTalk 03:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trivia. >Radiant< 10:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If "interesting" were a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia, this would not qualify. But that's the closest qualification I can come up with. -Freekee 16:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Extreme trivia. Wimstead 21:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe delete I created the page listing games that feature celebrity likenesses and I thought that it needed a catergory to go with it, but maybe not. The article just listing these games would be enough then I suppose. Mr.bonus 21:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-definitive and open to misinterpretation. -Sean Curtin 06:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - cruft.Bakaman 20:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - What? No Moonwalker? : ) - That aside, I don't think we should categorise by whether a celebrity licensed their likeness for a CVG. How about Category:Lunchboxes which feature a celebrity likeness? : ) - jc37 13:37, 30 December 2006 (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:Capitals of subnational entities and subcategory[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. Timrollpickering 10:54, 31 December 2006 (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.

Military conflicts and operations by country[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. the wub "?!" 01:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the failure of the previous nomination to standardize the naming of these categories, WP:MILHIST has come up with a new proposed naming scheme—"X involving Y"—that resolves the three major issues:

  1. Creating a consistent naming scheme across all such categories.
  2. Making more explicit the fact that the categories are set up by participants, not by location (see the FAQ concerning this).
  3. Resolve the concern raised in the previous nomination that the "X of Y" terminology could overlap with the normal naming of particular events (in other words, that readers might expect "Siege of France" to be a particular event).

Hence, we propose that all the sub-categories classifying military conflicts and operations by country be renamed to this new form. Kirill Lokshin 05:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all per nom. Seems a brainwave!  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 06:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. My compliments to the bot that gets this set. Timrollpickering 09:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. I think the old versions look prettier, simpler, more concise. But, as the three points above are excellent arguments... and for the sake of king and country consistency... LordAmeth 11:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. "Brain-Blast!"-Jimmy Neutron NDCompuGeek 14:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all and add battles and wars of Somalia. Tim! 14:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Carom 15:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Seems logical enough. - BanyanTree 17:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom.Baristarim 21:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom.--AshadeofgreyTalk 03:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: where does Thirty Years' War belong to? Germany didn't exist back then. I do not have better suggestion, only point to a flaw in current categorisation scheme. Pavel Vozenilek 17:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be under the HRE and the various states (e.g. Bavaria, Saxony, Brandenburg, etc.); I'll check it out. Kirill Lokshin 18:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I took off the Germany category from it; the other ones seem fine. There's probably potential for a few more HRE principality categories there, but I'll wait for this to conclude before creating them. Kirill Lokshin 18:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, wrong. The German empire persisted until the Napoleonic wars. It was politically a football of other European powers and of its constituent major parts - particularly during periods like 30 year war or 7 year war, but it did exist. Refdoc 16:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, the "German Empire" wasn't fielding any armies at the time, so it's not really a participant in any practical sense, even if it could be said to exist (but wouldn't the entity from this period be the "Kingdom of Germany", anyways?). Category:Wars of the Holy Roman Empire covers the participation of the HRE itself; beyond that, it's somewhat more useful to categorize according to each of the HRE/German principalities and sub-states individually, since they were basically independent political players here. :-) Kirill Lokshin 17:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per Brainwave. Gronda Gronda all round! Bluap 22:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial Oppose change of "Sieges in..." categories; those are set up by location. Category:Sieges involving France and Category:Sieges involving England would be much broader categories, and the Siege of Harfleur would be in both of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, the whole point is that those categories should be set up by participants (and would be, except for the fact that they were only created a week ago). Categorizing military engagements by location is simply unworkable; we've even put together a FAQ to explain exactly why. Kirill Lokshin 02:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. Excellent list and idea. The clearer title will make categorization much more sensible to the outside reader. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all, great idea. —Nightstallion (?) 12:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename MOST but not the SIEGES in categories. Sieges can also refer to one (e.g. English) knight besieging his neighbour (Ivanhoe and Robin Hood like stories have these); while the state remains passive (or did not yet exist). Thus a Siege in England may well be a siege that does not involve England (the state); like a argument in England (between neighbours) is not an argument involving England. Arnoutf 15:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's see: (1) the convention has been to categorize intra-country warfare (e.g. civil wars) as warfare involving that country (the medieval period being somewhat a bad example, as the knights are technically the country's military); and (2) you did read the FAQ on why categorizing military engagements by location is unworkable, yes? Kirill Lokshin 17:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all but DO NOT RENAME SIEGES - I agree with arnout above.Bakaman 19:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • *sigh* Out of curiosity, do you actually have any response to the reasons put forward by the Military history WikiProject for why this sort of categorizing by location won't actually work? Kirill Lokshin 19:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, and strong opposition to this shaky proposal. What are “battles involving Switzerland” ? Are they “battles with one Swiss mercenary”? --Juiced lemon 20:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those would be "Battles involving the Swiss" rather than "Battles involving Switzerland" (the country); but, in any case, the countries participating in a battle are usually quite clear, and are never determined by the presence of a single individual. Kirill Lokshin 22:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all, Kirill Lokshin seems to have adequately addressed the concerns that Arnoutf raised about sieges, so rename those as well, and the rest seem utterly non-controversial and sensible. Xtifr tälk 08:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename All, 'of' is just slightly too ambiguous, and many battles 'of' Canada for example took place on foreign soil. Sbmcmull 13:29, 30 December 2006 (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:Fictional bisexuals[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. Timrollpickering 11:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional bisexuals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Upmerge. As much as I applaud the creation of this category, I believe the distinction between bi and gay is not always possible to be clear. Of the three articles in the category at present, Marissa Cooper and Alex Kelly are indisputable - but perhaps some may see Stewie Griffin as something other than bisexual. Even with confirmation, the line is blurred, shifts, and is hard to objectively define beyond the LGB(T) parent. This is why I think this category should be upmerged as an unnecessary subcategory. If the consensus is that this category is kept, then someone should also create "fictional lesbians" and "fictional gay men" as subcategories. Perhaps "Bisexuality in fiction" or "List of fictional bisexuals" would suit this better. ~ZytheTalk to me! 00:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Placing people in both a "bisexual people" and a "gay people" or "lesbian people" cat is incorrect as the cats are exclusionary. One can't be both gay and bisexual. Otto4711 20:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't want to get in an argument over this, but to some people - you definitely can. Another reason why this category is bad - different people hold different interpretations of bisexuality - two simultaneous full sexualities, a blend, back and forth... yeah...~ZytheTalk to me! 22:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per Zythe. >Radiant< 10:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Combining categories for a particular (but very limited) set of sexualities is POV. Nathanian 16:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is categorising somebody by saying they're either lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender POV? ~ZytheTalk to me! 19:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Necessarily intersection of two higher-tier categories. Wimstead 21:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I'm anticipating a no consensus ruling, I might as well work on populating the category, as it's annoying me as it is. Let me reiterate, however, that this category will get very confusing and/or disputed.
Examples of characters whose bisexuality may be disputed:
Sometimes, a character may also appear exclusively hetero- or homosexual but not be. That's why subcategorising LGBT with fictional characters can be problematic. Characters such as the Brokeback Mountain boys would require definite citation. ~ZytheTalk to me! 01:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just out of interest, how is Constantine's bisexuality disputed? He's been written as having both boyfriends and girlfriends. --Mister Six 13:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per Zythe; "list" is the place for this sort of thing. --lquilter 02:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge and delete redundant category. Lesbians, bisexuals and such aren't always "transexual", either. Wasn't my idea to group them, but that's the standard here and elsewhere. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and create 'fictional lesbians' and 'fictional gay men' if they don't already exist. I think it's worth distinguishing between Bi, Gay, Lesbian and Transgendered characters where such distinctions can be made. --Mister Six 13:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nomination. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge and delete for the sake of verifiability and avoiding original research. Some of the listed characters had previously had opposite-sex relationships and were then shown interested in the same sex without stating explicitly if they were gay or bi; we don't know if they were in the closet in the first case, or if they really are bi. -Sean Curtin 07:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an example of natural evolution towards more detailed categories. Osomec 17:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When they're over-detailed, they don't work as categories. This category doesn't work, because it weakens "fictional LGBT categories" and behaviour is not always conclusive of definite orientation. ~ZytheTalk to me! 17:53, 29 December 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_24&oldid=1115325901"