Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 6 November 8 >

November 7[edit]

Crime in Serbia and Montenegro[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 16:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simply an English language error. These were intended to be about crime, not criminals. Rename all CalJW 00:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all. No argument. siafu 21:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:United States scientists to Category:American scientists[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge. Martin 23:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of far larger category:American scientists, which contains all the subcategories. Almost unused (20 is tiny in context). Parent would be category:American people by occupation if it had ever been properly categorised, grandparent would be Category:American people and subcategories all use "American". So let's continue the work of standardising these into normal English by merging this into Category:American scientists. CalJW 00:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy merge. Postdlf 01:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -Mayumashu 04:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Darwinek 11:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge. -- Reinyday, 17:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

American geography by state[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 16:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a follow up to the recent proposal to rename category:Hawaiian geography to category:Hawaii geography for "consistency", which thankfully looks like failing. These categories currently use nouns as adjectives and it would be much better to make them all consistent with the convention used for national geography categories:

Rename all CalJW 23:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Soviet spies to Category:Alleged Soviet spies[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 16:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category is too misleading and POV for many of the cases included inside it. Additionally, a number of the people listed are still alive, and allegations of espionage, however qualified, can easily be grounds for touchy defamation suits. Adding the "alleged" on there makes it clear that this is a category created by others, not Wikipedia. I also propose creating as a compliment category Category:Convicted Soviet spies, which is where we can separate out those who actually were labeled as such by a court of law. Fastfission 21:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • See my page User:Nobs01 for the basis of this information.
  • Support, a good idea and this category could use a division anyway. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, documentation from the NSA is cited on all Venona series articles. nobs 22:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not the question, Nobs. The question is whether we are labeling people as having committed crimes that they were not convicted of, some of whom are alive. --Fastfission 02:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the NSA dealt with this objection with this disclaimer,
The release of VENONA translations involved careful consideration of the privacy interests of individuals mentioned, referenced, or identified in the translations. Some names have not been released when to do so would constitute an invasion of privacy. VENONA Historical Monograph #4 nobs 02:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately our category name is "Soviet spies" not "People who the NSA has perhaps labeled as Soviet spies after taking consideration of the privacy interests." Additionally, the NSA is one particular POV on whether someone was a spy -- it is not the same thing as a conviction, nor it is the same thing as NPOV. --Fastfission 17:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the NSA is not omniscient. Radiant_>|< 23:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, first, just because the people have not been convicted means nothing. Lets keep the category and argue over who to place in it. There are hundreds of names of convicted and verified spies that could go into this category. TDC 02:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is an inherently POV category. It classifies people as spies when they have not been convicted of such. We might as well have on called "American murderers" and put Robert Blake in it. Sure, he wasn't convicted, but some people think he did it... --Fastfission 17:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The same standard of historiography used for John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald is applied in these articles. Neither were ever indicted or convicted, yet both lengthy Wikipedia articles declare thier guilt in the opening sentence. nobs 18:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not quite true. The LHO article says "Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated U.S. President John F. Kennedy...as determined by four formal federal investigations into the assassination." It doesn't come out and say "he did it" in the opening sentence. Gamaliel 05:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Valid statement, but the point remains valid and the same. As stated previously, "The same standard of historiography used", i.e. all Venona series articles are declaimed as determined by federal investigations. And cited below, Wikipedia is not a publisher of orginal thought. The statements are all properly attributed to multiple federal investigations. Also, note there wasn't an effort to insert weasel words into LHO til yesterday [1]. nobs 20:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Ambiguous title change...MONGO 04:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's ambiguous about it? It makes clear that they were accused by someone of being a spy. If they have been convicted, there could be a separate category for that. --Fastfission 17:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neither was Judas ever convicted, yet the judgement of history reads, "Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." nobs 18:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I oppose to changing a perfectly legitimate category because of the reasons mentioned above. Only, if any of the supposed living individuals actually contacts Wikipedia and asks for the category to be removed from their profile should it be suggested to remove a category. This whole court of law thing is totally disingenuous because most of the individuals were only discovered to be spies much later. Dwain 04:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the post-humorous evidence is disputed and sketchy. The Rosenbergs is a case in point -- a good deal of professional people would dispute definitely labeling them as Soviet spies. It is better to have a category which reflects this ambiguity. And if you look at the category it is full of people whose spy status is extremely tenuous -- i.e. a misc. U.S. government agency at one point included them in a list of possible spies and a tiny tidbit of evidence which they claim justifies it. --Fastfission 17:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • So persistent deniers continue to parse. Two cites: "For years the Rosenbergs' defenders demanded the government reveal its secrets about the case. When Secrecy Commission forced the disclosure of documents, the secrets revealed the government's case was even stronger."(Moynihan 62); "Rosenbergs' defenders have loudly demanded the release of government documents on the case, only to deny the documents' significance once they are made public."(Radosh 471-72). nobs 18:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Agree with Dwain. One of the more famous spies being Harry Dexter White who's appointment with the grim reaper precluded his conviction. He's not alleged nor convicted, but the preponderence of evidence indicates he was a spy nonetheless. As for the Rosenbergs, they were tried and convicted. There are always people who claim the innocence of the convicted. What standards should we use then? There are people who say the moon landing was a hoax. Should we only write that we "allegedly landed on the moon?" The whole "defamation lawsuit" is just a scare tactic to achieve an aim. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. If the original sources haven't been sued for defamation than Wikipedia wouldn't be either. Barneygumble 17:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Very good points! Dwain 02:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support current title is inaccurate. Martin 17:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for liability reasons Fred Bauder 18:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A defamation civil suit carries no Fifth Amendment Right against self incrimination. A claimant risks' a perjury charge to deny the weight of the government's evidence before a jury. When the U.S. Government gave "careful consideration to the privacy interests of individuals", they also acted as Trustees of the public treasury, under the prudent man rule, as to exposing the public treasury to risk. The 'liability' & 'defamation' claim is without merit. nobs 18:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for liability reasons, and because the NSA is neither omniscient, nor is it NPOV or disinterested when it comes to espionage matters. -- Arwel (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As has been discussed many a time when the topic arises, the term "spies" is too ambiguous, but "alleged" as a rename has mostly the effect of qualifying one particular, grand historical narrative. --TJive 18:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. To be honest, there probably needs to be both categories. Some individuals have even confessed to being spies. However, the current category should not be used simply based on allegations alone. Tfine80 19:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this is pretty dumb. Seriously, who comes up with this stuff? --Daniel11 22:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both these categories should exist. I am pretty sure we can call the Rosenbergs "spies" as they were convicted and put to death. Nothing alleged about that. However, there are other spies about whom there is less agreement on. Both categories should exists independantly of each other. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 23:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There were certainly people who fall into both categories namely people with convictions namely the Rosenbergs. There are others who had convictions for offences associated with spying notably Alger Hiss. There are others who we have fairly good evidence as being spies but who escaped being charged notably Harry Dexter White and Kim Philby. These people should be covered by Soviet spies. There are others for whom credible allegations exist but whose situation who less clearcut but who could presumably be covered by Alleged Soviet spies. Capitalistroadster 23:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Not only is the NSA not omniscient, but the category definition encompasses people named as spies "by some sources", not just NSA. Didn't some of the right-wing loonies accuse Eisenhower of being a Soviet agent? Note from Capitalistroadster's preceding comment that applying the category would require the convening of the High Court of the Republic of Wikipedia to decide which cases were sufficiently "clearcut" for category inclusion. JamesMLane 23:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • All sources are properly identified in the Reference section in all Venona series articles. nobs 01:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This vote isn't about the Venona project articles. It's about a category that includes but isn't limited to the people named in those articles. I suggest creation of a new article, List of people identified as Soviet spies by the Venona Project. That would provide all the information to the reader without the POV or defamation concerns, and without requiring us to evaluate the strength of the government's evidence on a case-by-case basis. (That someone was identified as a spy by the Project is an objective fact, even if the identification was mistaken.) We don't need a category because the list is presumably fixed and there'll be no future additions. JamesMLane 09:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How about Category:Presumed Soviet spies? --Tabor 02:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a useful distinction between those generally accepted as spies and those merely alleged. One way is Fastfission's "convicted" & "alleged" categories. However, "convicted" might be too narrow because some known spies, out of Western reach, may never have been charged. I like Tabor's approach of "presumed", but then we ought to be careful about the definition. One verifiable, npov definition would be "People convicted as spies or determined by the NSA to be spies." The definition of the "alleged" category then ought to be that an accusation was made which received some credence by notable persons, or by the public at large, at the time. Derex @ 02:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd suggest Category:Alleged Soviet spies (or Category:Believed Soviet spies? and Category:Known Soviet spies; the latter encompassing convicted cases, but also people like Kim Philby - accepted by everyone to be a spy, but never convicted as such. Category:Rapists is a good measure here - it limits the scope to people who were convicted of the crime, but also those cases where it's fairly certain they did even though no conviction occured. As it stands now, with the scope of the category, you'd be justified putting both Harold Wilson and Guy Burgess in there, which seems overly broad. Shimgray | talk | 02:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on the above 3 Comments: as to the issues of "allegedly" and "risk of defamation suits", the Venona series articles reflect nothing more than what United States Government documents say. NSA and FBI documents are based upon intercepted intelligence traffic, defector testimony, and investigations. Conclusions are further corroborated by Soviet Archives. The Moynihan Secrecy Commission had statutory authority, a law signed by President Clinton, to mandate release of documents from the CIA, NSA, and FBI. The various entities (Secrecy Commission, CIA, NSA & FBI) operate as fiduciaries of the public trust, and are required by law to weigh the risk exposure of lawsuits to the public trust, using the prudent man rule. The risk was weighed, certain identities were redacted for whatever reason, and the law mandating disclosure fulfilled. In otherwords (A) the risk of defamation for those persons identified as "Soviet spies" is zero; and (B) careful consideration of privacy interests was given, and some names were redacted when to do so would constitute an invasion of privacy.
I hope this answers any alleged legal concerns, and will be glad to entertain questions. nobs 06:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note - that was a comment on one of the above comments; it doesn't address mine, which addressed neither the "alleged legal concerns" nor mentioned Venona... Leaving aside the legal concerns (I personally feel we're unlikely to be sued) it's sloppy to have a list that includes everyone from Burgess to Wilson; it's so broad as to be meaningless. The consistent commentary on Venona articles is an American-centric strawman; is everyone ever fingered as a Soviet spy covered by Venona? This category is not a category of "individuals named as spies by Venona", and no-one I see here would be objecting to a category called that - instead, it's defined as a category encompassing people, anywhere, who spied for the Soviet Union across a seventy-year timeframe. The list mentioned above, of individuals fingered by Venona, would be a good approach - it lets us include clarifying details ("but this bit is thought by some sources to actually refer to so-and-so...") - the set of Venona individuals is known and finite, and thus suitable for a list. Splitting into "Alleged" and "Known" is good for reasons far better than legal concerns - it's encyclopedic. The category as we have now, which can encompass anyone plausibly accused through to someone confessed and convicted, is essentially useless for categorisation purposes. Shimgray | talk | 10:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See Another obtuse lecture. nobs 21:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am baffled as to what bearing that has here. I will, however, reiterate that repeatedly throwing around Venona is pretty much a strawman here - the category defines itself to encompass all spies, not spies outed by the NSA. Shimgray | talk | 22:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per serious concerns raised on wikien-l. Gamaliel 05:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me respond here seeing I can't get the e-mail to work: This issues was raised shortly after my e-mail was hacked where I discussed defamation with another user. It has no merit whatsoever for reasons already propounded, and is only raised presumeably for the same reasons I discussed it in a private message with another user. It's totally bogus. nobs 05:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There is a defamation issue that is real and live. Using categories as commentary on pages is bad, anyway. Use lists with comments in preference. Charles Matthews 08:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per defamation concerns. --Carnildo 18:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment on DEFAMATION. Wikipedia only cites OTHER sources. Wikipedia is NOT a publisher of original thought. It's like saying the New York Times is libel for printing a defaming statement made by Howard Stern against Mary Kate & Ashley. Howard would be libel. The NY Times would not be. Does everyone understand now? Barneygumble 19:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: That might be your understanding of how defamation works, it's not how it actually works in the UK. A magazine (say Private Eye) libels X, X then sues the magazine, the distributor (say W H Smith) and potentially every shop which sold the magazine as all are jointly involved in causing the libel to be published. This is why Smiths' refused to stock Private Eye for 10 years. UK law is relevant, since if a libel can be seen in the UK the plaintiff can sue in the UK courts. -- Arwel (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment on the comment: But in your situation, they can't sue a separate newspaper, say, the Sun for printing a story on the slander and including the actual slander. In your situation, Private eye was the publisher of original thought, whereas wikipedia is not. Proving libel is a monsterous task. In order to, the person must be still be alive, prove the statement was false (it's a reverse burden of proof), and then show irreparable harm was done (eg. they were an actor and can't get movie roles now). It's not going to happen, it can't happen, and this argument is ridiculous. Barneygumble 14:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • COMMENT on defamation. This whole issue of defamation is a bit lame. If a person can sue this encyclopedia for defamation for what is labeled on an article about them then one could also sue when someone suggests that a person is creating an article about themselves if it is not true. I have witnessed some very strong insinuations and out and out accusations against people who are listed and who are not listed in this encyclopedia. Are you worried that these people will also sue? One admin in particular comes to mind. So if this Category is deleted because of defamation concerns then I put it to you that every defamatory remark about people be excised from all of Wikipedia! Dwain 21:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the new category can be created without deleting the old. Because the evidence for some is weak, does not mean, we are no longer able to make well supported statements of fact in all cases.--Silverback 16:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Fortunately, being named in a U.S. government report does not mean that one has been convicted of a crime. Just like we wouldn't combine alleged rapists with convicted rapists, we shouldn't lump those who have called a spy by anyone with those who have been proven beyond doubt to be spies. -Willmcw 21:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree; like the Lee Harvey Oswald article, the Category could have language something like this:
This category lists people said to have spied for the Soviet Union by NSA, FBI and other federal investigations. Many are corroborated by defector testimony & Soviet Archives. Several denied they were spies or were never prosecuted. nobs 21:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That proves our point. They were SAID TO HAVE SPIED. Not "spied" or "were convicted of spying." SAID to have spied. A government accusation is not fact. The fact that OJ Simpson was said to have committed murder by the Los Angeles County District Attorney does not mean he could be added to Category:American murderers. FCYTravis 03:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because title is not accurate and could lead to liabilty issues relating to defamation; and all of it easily could be avoided by simply renaming.Cberlet 22:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, makes things unneccesarilly complicated. For example, the article exploding toad was in category:frogs, but now its in category:toads. There is a difference between frogs and toads, but what about an "alleged toad"? Or a ceramic yard toad? Who cares, they can all be filed under toads, the category system isn't that important, were just trying to help people find articles, not sway their opinion in favor of some commie mutant traitor. Sam Spade 19:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per Fastfission's original rationale. — Catherine\talk 04:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apparently forgot to vote... Support breaking down of this category, for a wide variety of reasons but mainly the fact that there hasn't been a good reason not to... Shimgray | talk | 01:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose All reasons are not convincing, inclusion in a category is not the same as an accusation. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 12:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - note also that NPOV is not a voting matter. Phil Sandifer 18:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Sometimes accuracy and NPOV makes labelling things "complex." Deal with it. The Tom 19:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per Cberlet, Snowspinner, and JamesMLane. 172 | Talk 02:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Per NPOV. To categorize someone as a "Soviet spy" if they have not been convicted of the crime of espionage (or committed an act which implicitly confirms espionage, such as defecting to the Soviet Union) is inherently unfair and POV. A government accusation is not fact. The fact that OJ Simpson was said to have committed murder by the Los Angeles County District Attorney does not mean he could be added to Category:American murderers. FCYTravis 03:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

American television people[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename. Martin 23:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep up the recent progress towards standardising the American people categories in line with normal English usage, the parent category, and the great majority of the like categories by renaming:

The American television executives and personalities are already in the prevalent form, so it would be good to remove the inconsistency. Standardising the American people categories will encourage thorough categorisation by removing the hassle of needing to check which form is in use for each occupation. CalJW 19:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Postdlf 01:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. - Darwinek 11:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Television directors of the United States" and same for producers. siafu 22:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as proposed. Honbicot 23:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom Hiding talk 15:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Writers by state to Category:American writers by state[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename. Martin 10:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of the American habit of overlooking the existence of the other six billion of us. Rename Category:American writers by state because that's what it is being used for. CalJW 19:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more that most Americans don't know "state" can also mean "country," or that there are other countries that have federal systems with their own subnational states... Ok, you're probably just right. But anyway, support the rename, but I wonder if this is the time to take a look at all these American state people subcategories and ask how necessary they are. I'm not sure what it means to be an Alabama writer, unless you only write in and/or about Alabama. Is that who is included in that category, or does it include who lived in Alabama for any length of time, and then happened to become a writer, no matter where? Then there's the issue of the city-specific categories... Postdlf 04:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Maryland[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 16:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category is part of attempt to receate MySpace on Wikipedia. -James Howard (talk/web) 18:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot say I would mind seeing the system go. It is a backdoor mechanism to get editors into the general namespace. If there were a non-general category schema, I wouldn't care. But I cannot see a good reason to have any path from the general namespace into User:, unless it is a link to a user page from an article on that user. -James Howard (talk/web) 19:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this should just be de-linked from Category:University of Maryland, College Park? Postdlf 04:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I could go for that, but I still think the idea is absurd. -James Howard (talk/web) 13:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did not notice before that Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Maryland was a subcategory of Category:University of Maryland, College Park. It is inappropriate for a Wikipedians category to be a subcategory of a regular category. I have removed the link. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 13:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I agree with the removal of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Maryland as subcategory of Category:University of Maryland, College Park. But, the "Wiki:UMD" category should not be deleted. BTW, "James Howard" is a great individual!! - QzDaddy 14:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll drop the nomination. -James Howard (talk/web) 15:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I take great offense at your slander.  ;) I am a proud alumni of the University of Maryland, College Park and will even be on campus tomorrow night! -James Howard (talk/web) 13:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:University of Maryland, College Park Faculty[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Martin 10:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cat is empty and served by Category:University of Maryland, College Park faculty -James Howard (talk/web) 18:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT mythology[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this should be renamed or deleted outright, but the contemporary term "LGBT" is entirely meaningless when applied to Ancient Greek culture and myths. Radiant_>|< 16:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is no need to drag sex into every subject area in this way. It is not npov. CalJW 19:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. LGBT people do not have their own mythology (contrary to what the category name suggests), nor are modern sexual identities relevant to ancient mythology (contrary to what the category entries imply). If someone can do it properly (and hasn't done it already), an article about sexuality and gender in ancient mythology would be appropriate. This category is not. Postdlf 01:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per previous comments. Valiantis 13:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Mythology of same-sex love. Guanaco 03:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No argument. siafu 22:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:LGBT computer and video games[edit]

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

The result of the debate was listify --Kbdank71 15:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A rather strange name, as it's not the games that are LGBT. In fact many contemporary games (especially from Japan) contain one or more LGBT people, but it seems meaningless to list all of those as 'LGBT games' unless sexual preference actually has a bearing on the game's gameplay. I think this is better represented as a list with some annotation. Listify, but if kept please rename to "Computer and video games with LGBT characters" or thereabouts. Radiant_>|< 16:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is no need to drag sex into every subject area in this way. It is not npov. CalJW 19:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not rename. It's silly to categorize a computer game by the sexual preference of its characters. I'm fine with a carefully annotated and properly titled list article—lists are the way to go with all of this identity-politics stuff rather than categories. Postdlf 01:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify with explainations or at last resort, delete. As per my arguments on Category talk:LGBT computer and video games. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 21:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify as per JiFish, same reasons. --Wwwwolf 19:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and list. siafu 22:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:U.S. philosophers to Category:American philosophers[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename. Martin 10:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Following the trend to name American people cats using the descriptor 'American' as opposed to 'U.S.'. (Note: at present, the proposed cat exists as a "redirect") -Mayumashu 16:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Let's get them all done. Categorising American people will be much easier then, so more of it will get done accurately. CalJW 19:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Postdlf 01:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. - Darwinek 10:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Honbicot 23:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom Hiding talk 15:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Jewish film directors[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 15:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is such a thing as over-categorization, especially as there will be inevitable arguments over who gets included. JW 16:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. - Darwinek 10:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. However, this cat should not be a subcat of category:Film directors by nationality as "Jewish" is not a nationality. Valiantis 13:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the category. Discuss whether category:film directors by nationality is an appropriate parent at its talk page. — Instantnood 15:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Why have a listing of directors by their religion? Is there also a small category: "Non-Jewish film directors"?Barneygumble 20:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. category:film directors by nationality makes some sense. category:film directors by ethnicity does not. Overcategorizing means that someone looking on the category list for a film director needs to know before hand if he's Jewish or not. That's no help to navigation, a key purpose of categories. -Willmcw 21:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Willmcw and Postdlf. "Jewish" is not a nationality. siafu 22:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep though informing, it isn't too relavent these guys are Jewish. The Republican 03:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Jewish is a nationality, Judaism isn't. This is not a list of directors of Jewish faith (some of them are not religious at all). This is about directors of Jewish descent. In most cases their Jewish heritage immensely affects their art, and this is what makes this a particularly interesting categorization. Spikeballs 00:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Israeli is a nationality, Jewish is not. Jews consider themselves to be one "nation", but this view is generally held by those who are practicioners of Judaism, making it a religious concept rather than a truly national one. DirectorStratton 06:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Admin abuse problem[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be an "anti-admin" category, and is not even properly labeled as a "wikipedia" category. The items in this category seem to be loosely connected. -Willmcw 07:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather see this renamed properly than deleted outright. Friday (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is used for attacking some admins that have done something that some users disagree with. Whichver way you put it, this is not a useful way of handling the disputes. Radiant_>|< 16:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Radiant!. --cesarb 19:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Radiant!. Postdlf 01:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The most likely effect of using this category is to make the situation worse. I can't see any useful fucntion for this category. Carbonite | Talk 20:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was the last one using it, and I've removed it, so this category is now empty (and I can't imagine anyone would object to its deletion). Friday (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Secretaries of State for Defence (UK)[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep and populate --Kbdank71 15:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can't help thinking that this was once full or had the intention of being so but is currently empty. Any ideas? Not sure if needs deleting, more of a discussion point on what to do with it doktorb 04:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good question - it's not the only category like this either: Category:Secretaries of State for Education (UK) is the same. They're not new categories either. They are easily fillable, though, if anyone has the inclination, from the names in the parent Category:British Secretaries of State. These shopuld be kept, and if there a UK parliamentary WikiProject around, it should be told that these need filling. Perhaps uputting {{popcat}} templates on them all will help, too. Grutness...wha? 07:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll mark them with popcat. There are hundreds of articles in the parent category, which isn't really a very useful location for articles imo, and they should all be allocated to the subcategories. CalJW 12:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Surely these should be renamed even when populated, though, to "British secretaries of state for Defence/Education/etc." instead of using the abbreviation. siafu 22:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that seems to be matching the article title. Political office-holders are organized by country, not nationality, though. The Tom 19:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_7&oldid=1122228819"