< February 15	February 17 >

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. —akghetto ^talk 09:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is misnamed, as all of the films in it (except for American Psycho, and arguably Addams Family Values) are parodies, not satires. The categories for both satirical films and parody films are rather small, making this one unnecessary.--Fallout boy 10:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support delete TheGrappler 22:27, 17 February 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 page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. —akghetto ^talk 09:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly and ambiguously named, and miscapitalized, but more importantly...Nazi victims by occupation?? Delete. Postdlf 06:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Overcategorisation. Kurt Gerron's page has 3 such "victim" categories now but the article itself is poorly written and doesn't mention circumstances of his imprisonment (small bits are in Concentration camp Theresienstadt ) and his death at all. Such "categories" are prime example of lazyness - instead of writing coherent text some people "contribute" by plastering pages with invented categories. Pavel Vozenilek 22:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support delete TheGrappler 22:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only "Nazi victims by occupation" categories that would make sense would refer to the occupation of Poland, the occupation of France... Grutness...wha? 01:15, 18 February 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 page.

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 13:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed as a speedy to drop the abbreviation but moved here after comments. This nomination includes changing to the form that is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas as suggested by MONGO. Vegaswikian 03:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:U.S. Wilderness Areas → Category:Wilderness Areas of the United States
• Category:U.S. National Wild and Scenic Rivers → Category:Wild and Scenic Rivers of the United States
• Category:U.S. National Monuments → Category:National Monuments of the United States
• Category:U.S. National Marine Sanctuaries → Category:National Marine Sanctuaries of the United States
• Category:U.S. National Lakeshores → Category:National Lakeshores of the United States
• Category:U.S. National Grasslands → Category:National Grasslands of the United States
• Category:National parks of the United States → Category:National Parks of the United States
• Category:National Memorials in the United States → Category:National Memorials of the United States
• Category: National Wildlife Refuges in the United States → Category: National Wildlife Refuges of the United States
• Category:U.S. National Seashores → Category:National Seashores of the United States
• Category:U.S. National Battlefields and Military Parks → Category:National Battlefields and Military Parks of the United States

• Support Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support - My only concern is with the capitalization. Let me make it clear that I don't much care if the syntax is either "Category:National foo of..." or "Category:National Foo of...", as long as it is consistent. I just don't want to have to deal with another renaming in the future if the "wrong" format is used. In the National Park Service publications I have seen, they do not consider designations to be proper names, and only capitalize them in headers or in the full name of a unit. An example: "National Memorial: A national memorial is commemorative of a historic person or episode; it need not occupy a site historically connected with its subject." [emphasis added] [1] However, in at least this Forest Service website, that agency capitalizes National Forest and National Grassland as proper terms. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of capitalization rules for Wikipedia categories can shed some light on the quandry? — Eoghanacht ^talk 14:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There does not appear to be any opposition in WikiProject Protected areas to the forms used above. I know that there is minimal discussion, but if there is no objection consenus there, or here, by the end of this vote, then we should make this the standard so that future renames are not needed. Vegaswikian 18:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Believe that if we are discussing a list, as the category ultimately is, we should capitalize eg: National Park...if we then, in article space talk about parks or that park, then of course p isn't capitalized, unless we state it in the terms of eg: Glacier National Park is one of the National Parks located in the Rocky Mountains. Glad that Eoghanacht brought this up as I wasn't fully understanding the argument before. I think the congressional designation would be National Park, National Forest, National Wildlife Refuge. I dunno...it probably isn't a big deal but the U.S. has got to go for sure.--MONGO 04:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I would go with the caps version as national parks could mean all parks owned by the federal government while National Parks clearly indicates only those designated such. Rmhermen 04:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the designation should be capitalized to avoid abiguity as Rmhermen points out. The example I find compelling is Wilderness Areas which has a quite different meaning than wilderness areas. I would like to see this usage adopted within articles, as well, as in MONGO's example (above).Walter Siegmund (talk)
• Support. It seems to me that this time it is handled in good way. - Darwinek 07:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Indifferent. I honestly don't think it matters which way we phrase it. But why would we need a Vfd? Couldn't we just conduct a vote for a move on the WikiProject talk page? -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 20:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, Comment. This goes along with the general trend of using "United States" consistently. While we're at it, we should also merge Category:U.S. National Scenic Rivers into Category:U.S. National Wild and Scenic Rivers; there's no need to have two separate categories. – Swid ^{(talk | edits)} 21:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. Vegaswikian 20:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. merge that, but can the category be titled Category:National Wild and Scenic Rivers of the United States?--MONGO 11:19, 24 February 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 page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. —akghetto ^talk 09:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This category is currently empty, and duplicates the populated categories Category:LGBT Wikipedians and Category:Queer Wikipedians. All the sub-categories are included in other categories. --Samuel Wantman 03:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a social site. Wryspy 06:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is not empty as it is the parent of gay and lesbian categories. --Vizcarra 06:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look closer. Two of the three subcategories,Category:Gay Wikipedians and Category:Lesbian Wikipedians are also children of Category:LGBT Wikipedians. Category:Homoflexible Wikipedians is also deep in the hierarchy below LGBT Wikipedians, but should probably be moved up to be a child. The hierarchy of all these categories is confused. Many children are also siblings. So I'm trying to get rid of some of the incestuous relationships. --Samuel Wantman 07:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That statement: A. Makes my head hurt, and B. Is the funniest thing I've seen on CfD so far. Cheers :) Adrian~enwiki (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Homosexuality would be included under LGBT, yes. Even so, this is not a very scientific grouping, and is more a collective of alternative sexualities, a kind of group you see often in schools. Emptiness is irrelevant if it is a category for other categories, in which it is not empty. There's also not any conflict with the Queer category at all. Do note that Wiki categories do not use a tree category, and that a category can be classed under many relevant branches. Tyciol 09:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no users in this category, and the subcategories are already part of LGBT so why keep it? I'm not getting your rationale. -- Samuel Wantman 00:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category was recently added. You can't very well expect people to be in a category that's recently formed. It's put there because it's part of an inclusive category tree. It is useful for homosexuals who do not want to identify their gender, or as a master list navigating to the gay and lesbian categories than LGBT which is not a proper term, but rather an organization. Not all homosexuals may belong to it. Tyciol 04:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep --Terence Ong 16:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it just adds an extra layer in the category system. --Salix alba (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an acceptable reason to vote on, especially since it isn't a 'layer'. Tyciol 06:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't think there are many people these days, Wikipedians included, who identify as homosexual. That said, if a bunch of people come peeking out of the woodwork saying "I'm homosexual! Keep the category!", go ahead and reverse my vote. I'm all for keeping Wikipedians categories whenever they're being used. -Seth Mahoney 01:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that's rather silly. Many people identify as heterosexual, just as many identify as homosexual. Anyone who is gay or lesbian identifies as homosexual, homosexual is the more technical term, it's just not as common in slang. It is also better inclusive in dividing genders, whereas there is currently missing, a category for male homosexuals. It's assumed they would go under 'gay wikipedians', but this may also include lesbians, who have their own category. It's very messy. Tyciol 06:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not silly at all. It is customary at Wikipedia to address groups of people with the name they wish to call themselves. If nobody has self-identified as "homosexual" and the categories being used ar "queer" and "LGBT" and their subcomponents, that makes it pretty clear that there is no need for "Homosexual Wikipedians". It would be like saying that we need to have Category:Negro Wikipedians even if there were already Category:Black Wikipedians and Category:African-American Wikipedians (if any of these actually existed). -- Samuel Wantman 00:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand what you mean, I don't think it's a similar kind of comparison. All the terms you mentioned are preferences. 'Homosexual' is a scientific descriptor, much like 'heterosexual' (would you replace that with 'straight' wikipedians?). Currently if 'Gay' and 'Lesbian' are only under LGBT, they are included with Bisexual and Transgender people, very different categories. 'Homosexual' is added as a separate inclusion, which is gathered with 'Heterosexual' under the 'Monosexual' category, just as 'Bisexual' is an aspect of Wikipedians by sexuality. This is another example. No one person is listed under 'Wikipedians by sexuality', yet it is not deleted. This is because it is a category for including other categories, which is what I intend here, just as in bisexual, though it is open for those of the sexual persuasion who do not wish to identify their genders, unlike the current one. Tyciol 04:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Homosexual' is a pathologizing descriptor, which is, I suspect, why few people identify as 'homosexual' anymore. -Seth Mahoney 04:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Hyacinth 07:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason? Tyciol 06:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; it serves no purpose except to duplicate other categories. Bearcat 20:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated, it does serve a purpose. It's purpose is to replace 'gay wikipedians' which is untechnical, and does not currently include 'Lesbian' as an inclusive category should. Tyciol 06:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Duplicates Category:Gay Wikipedians. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 20:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As above, it does not duplicate it, it will include it. Tyciol 06:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Identity politics, don't you just love it? I would have Category:LGBT Wikipedians as the parent category, to which Wikipedians could add themselves if they wanted, and then make the others subcategories of this one. David | Talk 11:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the eventual intention. Since 'bisexual' and 'transgender' are references including all genders, dividing 'lesbian' and 'gay' as separate classifications is somewhat confusing. HBT would make more sense. Unless of course, it is referring to those who participate in the organization called 'LGBT', which should retain it's own category. It can remain inclusive of the current ones, but a separate category solely for sexuality (without organizational monickers) is required I think. Tyciol 04:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Category cruft, and too much focus on WP itself. Redundant given the LGBT one. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I say it lacks redundancy is that it can not be put under the monosexuality category, and there is currently a division as females can join both 'gay' and 'lesbian' where men can only join 'gay'. 'Gay' should be changed to 'gay male', 'lesbian' remains, and both classed under 'homosexual'.

• Delete all userspace-categories. This thing is mainly created by a userbox template, which also needs to go. --Cyde Weys 02:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False, this was not created from a Userbox template. If it was, it is a coincidence. Also doubtful regarding userboxes is if it were displayed, such a user would be a member of the category and there would be less criticism of it. Tyciol 04:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per above. Haiduc 00:04, 21 February 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 page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. —akghetto ^talk 10:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as arbitrary overcategorization, and replace contents into Category:Italian-Americans and Category:American jazz musicians if not already in those. Obviously there are a number of people who qualify for these categories, but I don't believe this intersection of ethnicity and profession (profession by genre, no less) has been studied academically or culturally recognized enough to have earned a category. These are the only two subcategories of American jazz musicians that divide by ethnicity. Postdlf 00:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—the phrase "Italian-American jazz musicians" gets 15 unique google hits outside of Wikipedia, many of which appear to come from informal use in discussion forums.[2] Compare with "African-American jazz musicians," which gets well over 10 times that, with the lead hits coming from the titles of books studying that intersection as a subject.[3] Postdlf 00:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 2—the "Italian-American musicians" category was previously CFD'd. Postdlf 00:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Unambigious category and well populated. --Vizcarra 06:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Historically correct. --stefanomione 20.40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you show me where a history of Sician-American jazz musicians or Italian-American jazz musicians has been documented and studied as a discrete topic? Postdlf 20:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. we should not have to show cultural discreteness, just ethnic and occupational distinctiveness for what can only function as an finite ethnicity subcategory (rather useless for many users because of its narrow scope but historically correct, unambiguously definable, and well-populated, as users mention). the lack of google hits makes the topic deletable as an article page, but not a category page Mayumashu 02:19, 22 February 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 page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. —akghetto ^talk 10:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category seems POV, difficult to police and of minimal usefulness to the encyclopedia. Not to mention that the current criteria would probably include every Christian editing an article related to Christianity, etc. Peyna 23:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please elaborate on POV? Thank you so much.

I agree that it would be tricky to police, but that's only because of the anonymous nature of some edits. Articles could not be included in this category if they are merely suspect of having been edited, just as we wouldn't include someone within Category:Living people if we only suspected they were still living.

As for being minimally useful, I agree only because I believe in a few months/years this will be maximally useful, as Wikipedia itself becomes the battleground, by interested parties, over public opinion. While the list is small now it is all very recent. I expect the list of people attempting to surrupticiously contribute to their own articles will increase.

As for putting every Christian editor in the category, the category states that articles in this category would have to have been edited "by the subject of the article, agents of the article's subject, or others with a direct interest in the content of the article." Surely, many feel close to Jesus, but nobody's THAT close. Anymore. Yeago 23:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. What about alumni of schools? Residents of towns? Owners of vehicles? Member of political parties? Subscribers to magazines? We already have a template for the biographies of Wikipedia editors. This is unnecessary and arbitrary. -Will Beback 23:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but what we have, and are finding more and more, are articles that have been edited by the subject or agents of the subject surrupticiously. JT LeRoy's friend editing JT LeRoy, Adam Curry bloating his involvement in Podcast (this is miles away from a mere Podcast user giving his two cents), and staff of politician Marty Meehan pasting bio content into his article. A "template for biographies of Wikipedia editors" doesn't cover it.

These three cases, and probably many more undiscovered truly fit into their own class. Perhaps you disagree with the title? The examples you gave indicate to me that you don't see the special connection that this category attempts to make.Yeago 00:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the biographies template we identify the user who is the subject. With this category there's no way of know who the interested parties are, or what their interest is (pro or con). It also implies that articles without the category have not been edited by interested parties. -Will Beback 03:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had considered the template idea (it was already done at one article) but I thought a category would be more subtle and yet just as effective.

I see how it could be a problem that it does not contain that information. I reasoned that it was ok because the articles in question contain a section which gives the nature and the particulars of the dispute.

In order not to imply that articles not flagged have certainly NOT been edited, I could change the phrasing to "Articles found to have been edited by involved parties". Here again, forgive me, I was simply trying to be brief. What do you think?

Yeago 06:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. To echo what I said above, not only is this almost going to include every article for every city, school, place, organization, etc. in the encyclopedia, but we also have the problem that putting an article in this category may have the tendency to stigmatize the article, in that people may see the category and then wonder if they can really trust the article to be NPOV. That is why the category itself becomes POV. Peyna 23:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean about an article perhaps becoming untrustworthy as a result of being in this category, however, you have it backwards. Articles that have this category would already have undergone a process of sorting through contributions which were put there with an agenda because the problem content had been identified and eliminated.Yeago 00:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Perhaps the category name is too encompassing. Its simply that I wanted the name to be as short as possible. Here are some more specific suggestions:

• Articles surrupticiously edited by interested parties
• Articles edited by directly interested parties
• Articles targeted during a public debate
• Articles edited with an agenda

Agenda would have been uncovered by the time this category was added. There is already precedent for this. [4] [5] [6]Yeago 00:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, the category name makes it sound more broad than it actually is. Sorry about that.Yeago 00:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling it "articles edited with an agenda" is making a value-judgment about edits made by a person that is probably wholly inappropriate. We're told to assume good faith, and while you might think the people that edited those articles had "an agenda," perhaps their agenda was just to have a good article about themselves and in the process happened to lose some other information in the article? "Surreptitiously" means stealth, which every edit here is "surreptitious" in the sense that no one really knows who the editor is or why they are editing or what their intent is. How close to the article would someone have to be to be "directly interested"? With the Meehan example, he had no involvement in it at all. Some intern came to his chief of staff and the chief of staff signed off on it. What's the significance of that person doing it compared to an ardent Meehan supporter back home doing it, and why does it really matter? Peyna 00:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The signifigance is that as Wikipedia grows exponentially in terms of both number of articles and attention by the mass media, it is going to become an ever-increasing target by parties in the battle over public opinion.

I am sorry you cannot be convinced, but I can't help that. Certainly, one is to assume good faith and I am sorry you do not agree that the good faith goes out the window when the anonymous person turns out to be someone that has financial or political stake in the article. This is a very different thing than merely providing "autobiographical" content as was suggested earlier.

This is not a connection that is lost outside of Wikipedia--it is certainly not lost on the media, who daily reports anxiety over the possibility that Wikipedia can be edited by anybody. I simply propose we begin keeping track of it, when an offending contribution surfaces.Yeago 00:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as poorly conceived. Whatever valid function this may serve is duplicative at best of Category:NPOV disputes. Postdlf 00:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It fails to either duplicate or qualify for mere Category:NPOV disputes because articles in Category:Articles edited by interested parties are no longer in NPOV dispute. The disputes were settled with the revelation of the identity of the contributer.Yeago 01:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then what's the sense of tagging them, if the POV content has been fixed? As I said, "whatever valid function..." Postdlf 05:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I read you now. There are a few reasons to tag the articles:

• The articles are already "tagged" by the news media.
• Some people find the phenomenon notable and interesting.
• There is precedent. We already have categories for things like Articles mentioned on Slashdot, articles cited as a source, etc. Articles that arouse such attention by the media are not much different.
• So such instances of scandalous insertions can be better tracked.

I am sorry to have misread you earlier. Thank you for reiterating. =)Yeago 07:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Poorly conceived, hard to define, will never be complete and we will never know how incomplete it may be. Carina22 22:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. If this category is kept, you certainly need to add every single article I've ever edited to the category. I haven't edited anything I'm 100% disinterested in. So however many hundreds of articles that is. But even taking less contentious examples: I'm a notable wikipedian who has written a book and a lot of articles about the Python programming language; I've also edited the Python article. So it even goes so far as me having a financial interest in the topic of the article (a bit indirect, but definitely extant). Still, the category seems far less than useful to add to the Python article. I've also edited articles about some academic colleagues of mine—no financial interest, but I definitely have a certain (positive) personal sentiment about them. I don't think it has made those articles POV (nor even my edits), but I have a certain interestedness in such articles existing. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You bring up a valid point. Do you not see at all the connection I am attempting to make? Do you think it would be mitigated by adding the word "surripticiously" to it? Yeago 03:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the word "surreptitiously" makes it perhaps even worse; certainly it introduces even more subjective quality and POV. Were my edits to Python programming language "surrepetitious"?! What if I made some of them anonymously (I don't think I did, but I occasionally edit while not logged in, either by error, or perhaps when I'm in a different location). My WP username doesn't look much like my "author name" (though the notable wikipedians category links them, as does info on my userpage)... is that a sneaky way of editing? What if someone even more tied to Python edited the article (either by IP address or by username, and the username may or may not be easily identifiable)? Would it become "interested" only if it was language creator Guido van Rossum? What if it was a different Python Software Foundation member (interested, but maybe not quite as much)? What if I write two Python books instead of just one so far? What if someone who simply makes a living programming in Python contributes (I presume most editors of that article, in fact, do so)?

All of these are questions that need not be answered, and serve no particular purpose. Yeago seems to have become overly worked up over the fact that Adam Curry apparently exaggerated his own importance to Podcasting. But ultimately, so what? If I exaggerated my importance within the Python community, hopefully some editor would fix that—it's just a regular NPOV concern. And even if Guido or (major contributor) Tim Churches came along and exaggerated their importance (which is greater than mine), equally someone should fix it under the same type of regular NPOV editing. There's absolutely no meaningful cutoff point for "interestedness", and there cannot be in principle. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeago doesn't consider "surreptitiously" POV/subjective in this case because it is objectively verifiable.

I have an interest in the phenomenon of people editing articles in which they have a stake in. The news media does too, or they wouldn't blow the horn every time it happens (and bag Wikipedia in the process as utterly corruptible).

Obviously its a regular NPOV concern and its dealt with that way, but its also a notable event and I'd like to figure out a way to group/track them. Definitely, there is the theory that "interestedness" is vague beyond use. I think my other word "involvedness" probably fails this test as well. There is a unique thread these articles share. Unfortunately I can't think of generally agreed upon way to isolate it.

Yeago 03:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, for reasons given immediately above. -Seth Mahoney
• Delete as self-referential, also because it's patently unverifiable. --Cyde Weys 02:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its "patently" unverifiable and yet the category gives uncontroversial citations from around the internet of it happening.

Self-referential Whaaa? Oh, I get it now. You're parrotting what Lulu said while moving the categories. He didn't mean it as a reason for deletion, he meant it literally—categories are allowed to be self-referential, but they simply belong on the Talk page. This wasn't a reason for deletion. Squawk squawk.Yeago 03:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Parroting" is a impolitic way of putting it. Clyde was perhaps agreeing with me, but I presume he is well able to judge on his own. But in any case, the prohibition on self-reference is a general thing. Allowing a limited sort of self-reference on talk pages is a bit of a compromise, and many editors wish there was not even that. Fewer rather than more self-references even on talk pages is certainly desirable, absent really compelling countervailing concerns. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unverifiable, self-referential etc etc. Honbicot 18:32, 20 February 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 page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. —akghetto ^talk 10:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:

Category:Former pupils of schools by country

Category:Former pupils of English schools

Category:Former pupils of English public schools

Category:Former pupils of Scottish schools

Category:Former pupils of Scottish private schools

We already have Category:People by schools in the United Kingdom and its subcats. These are just duplicates. Alternatively, switch the contents of the latter across and delete those cats, but we don't need both. -- Necrothesp 19:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support delete TheGrappler 22:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Herostratus 09:02, 18 February 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 page.

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

The result of the debate was No consensus on delete, fix capitalization --Kbdank71 14:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 17:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Category:People by clothing is a poor category scheme to classify an individual by. This is particularly since the period in which someone lived is going to determine most of the entries (imagine "Famous corset wearers"...unusual to wear one now, but unusual not to wear one 100 years ago). Nor is it clear how much someone would have had to wear a bow tie to be considered a "wearer"... Once? Furthermore, no category should have the word "famous" in it. Also miscapitalized. Any other flaws needed to kill this? Postdlf 19:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If we're going to have Category:Living people in the Wikipedia, why not Category:Famous Bow tie wearers? Postdlf did make a good point in that the category is miscapitalized although I can't see why "famous" doesn't belong in a category title… if "fictional" works in a category title, what's wrong with "famous"? But isn't the capitalization easily fixed? --Micahbrwn 21:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Living people exists because of maintenance purposes, not because it has encyclopedical value. Pavel Vozenilek 00:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not serve a navigational purpose. I'd make a fine list. -Will Beback 21:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (but de-capitalize the "b"). I like this one. I don't think you should get into this category lightly, but if I'm writing an article about bowties, this could be quite useful. (I don't really care whether the word "Famous" stays. I'd be fine with deleting that.)--Mike Selinker 23:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above; no objection to replacing it with a list article. --Muchness 04:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename. Any category that includes Orville Redenbacher, Tucker Carlson, Krusty the Clown, and the Chippendales dancers is clearly too awesome to delete. Andrew Levine 05:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a defining characteristic. Carina22 22:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify. Osomec 23:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete this is why the good Lord gave us lists. Grutness...wha? 01:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Move to a List. It's researchable information, and Wikipedia is about information. Some people are interested in this topic. But I don't see why you shouldn't move the information to a "list", rather than keep it as a "category". pat8722 15:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (but a list wouldn't be quite as awful). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify; it's verifiable information, but categories by clothing seem like a bad idea as Postdlf states. However a list can better document that the person is noted for wearing bowties frequently. Mairi 02:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and fix title, for two reasons: 1: I just like the category, and 2: There are actually people interested in studying fashion on historical or theoretical levels. Maybe they can use a category like this. -Seth Mahoney 03:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and fix titleper Selinker and Seth Mahoney MPS 21:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (fixing the capital "B" is a speedy recat). BD2412 T 03:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and fix title —akghetto ^talk 09:33, 24 February 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 page.

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:National Recreation Areas of the United States --Kbdank71 14:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In keeping with the Category:National parks of the United States format. Also merge Category:U.S. national recreation areas into this new category. — Eoghanacht ^talk 14:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support bothCategory:National Recreation Areas of the United States. Vegaswikian 17:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:National Recreation Areas of the United States and merge. - EurekaLott 19:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding capitalization: Although I think it looks better if everything is title case — "national recreation area" is not a proper name. (In this National Park Service site you will note that the designations are not capitalized within the body of the text.) Frankly, I don't care either way — but for consistency it would require renaming alot of National parks of Country categories (see: Category:National parks) — Eoghanacht ^talk 20:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support move, but believe that the only title that is correct is "National Recreation Areas of the United States"...while one individual recreation area may use lower case for the protected area, if listed as a group, the best way to name them is by full capitalization I believe.--MONGO 03:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment regarding capitizalition again, I will abide with whatever the consensus is in the related U.S. protected areas discussion, above. — Eoghanacht ^talk 14:36, 17 February 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 page.

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

The result of the debate was rename. —akghetto ^talk 09:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category name should be in English and clearly understandable. Mtiedemann 10:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename. We need standardization and clarity here. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename for clarity to average user. Herostratus 08:41, 18 February 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 page.

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

The result of the debate was Rename per Mayumashu. — Feb. 24, '06 [12:48] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

CG janitor 12:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after opposition. Vegaswikian 06:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose use of demonym is prominent in like cat names, move this down please Mayumashu 05:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Winnipeggers was renamed to People from Winnipeg, but Winnipeggers is the correct demonym. Are we trying to bring in a standard or are we just going with what people like? Also, does anyone know if Ashevillians is a commonly used demonym by the locals? CG janitor 06:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?? Category:Winnipeggers, Category:People from Winnipeg; as to if its correct or not, i say let time and others users (from there) tell Mayumashu 06:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I guess I got mixed up as to which way around it was. CG janitor 07:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Standard categorization. There are more "People of foo" than "Fooans", "Fooers", "Fooites" together and causes less confusion. --Vizcarra 17:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename. However, I'm unclear on why this category exists in the first place—what value is there in such hyper-localized categorization? Of the five individuals in this category, four were born there and beyond that initial mention, their articles don't reference Asheville further, and one of the five doesn't even mention Asheville at all. None of them appear to have even lived there past their childhood. It seems that these categories exist mostly for a town to claim famous people as its own, while the town may be of mere trivial import to the individual's article. Postdlf 01:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename in furtherance of the interests of clarity. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's clearer the renamed way. Copysan 04:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment a rename should be Category:People from Asheville, North Carolina, shouldn t it? Mayumashu 11:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose demonym use is tidier Brcreel 02:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to specify state. There are other towns with same name (see Greenville). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:12, 20 February 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 page.

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

The result of the debate was Rename per Mayumashu. — Feb. 24, '06 [12:46] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

CG janitor 12:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after opposition. Vegaswikian 06:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose move this too down Mayumashu 05:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See comment on Ashevillians. CG janitor 06:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Standard categorization. There are more "People of foo" than "Fooans", "Fooers", "Fooites" together and causes less confusion. --Vizcarra 17:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename. Postdlf 01:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename as in similar categories. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's clearer the renamed way. Copysan 04:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment. suggest the rename be Category:People from Greenville, South Carolina Mayumashu 12:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename per Mayumashu. Postdlf 03:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose demonym use is tidier Brcreel 02:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not when there is more than one place with that name. See Greenville for a complete list. Demonyms utterly fail at dealing with disambiguation. Postdlf 03:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Mayumashu. The people from Greenville, Liberia, Greenville, Alabama, Greenville, California, Greenville, Delaware, Greenville, Florida, Greenville, Georgia, Greenville, Illinois, Greenville, Indiana, Greenville, Kentucky, Greenville, Maine, Greenville, Massachusetts, Greenville, Michigan, Greenville, Mississippi, Greenville, New Hampshire, Greenville, New York, Greenville, North Carolina, Greenville, Ohio, Greenville, Pennsylvania, Greenville, Rhode Island, Greenville, Texas, Greenville, Virginia, Greenville, Wisconsin, and Greeneville, Tennessee need not be snubbed. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:10, 20 February 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 page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. —akghetto ^talk 09:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made all the articles that were in this category one article at EverQuest Deities instead of several teeny tiny ones. Category not needed anymore. Aaronw 05:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete empty category: good job with the merging --Melaen 10:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete now. Pavel Vozenilek 00:01, 17 February 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 page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. —akghetto ^talk 10:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another of the "Actors and actresses appearing on..." to "...actors" category.--130.65.240.251 05:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – The original category is for (or includes) people who have guest starred in the series. The new name suggests regular cast members. --Vizcarra 17:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify. Not a category stuff. Pavel Vozenilek 17:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename, to narrow the category's criteria. Actors should not be categorized by a series that they merely guest starred in. Categorizing someone by being a regular cast member of a long-running, prominent TV show is something I'm quite comfortable with, however. Postdlf 20:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE and LISTIFY 132.205.45.110 20:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How about "West Wing castmembers". Its gender neutral.Yeago 20:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• There has to be some kind of standard practice already for this. Why not just use the category "The West Wing (television)"? Peyna 21:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and convert to list is my general opinion of all these types of categories. Is there a guideline anywhere about how popular a series has to be to have one of these categories? I would think there would be some actors with an entire list of shows they at least cameoed in. —Mike 02:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• These discussions often seem to get bogged down due to people attempting to address the problem in different ways. Some want to rename and narrow, while others would prefer to delete and start over. I'm okay with either. - EurekaLott 19:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolutely oppose. The category is necessary because many major characters, including the President's family and staff are not considered the "main cast" but fit in this category instead. For shows like this and Law and Order and ER, etc. we need a broader category. — Scm83x ^talk 07:24, 22 February 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 page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. —akghetto ^talk 10:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ill-concieved. Delete. --Neutrality^talk 03:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No potential to be anything but a POV dumping ground and edit-war fest. Postdlf 04:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list is factual. How could you possibly call readily available public information POV? Any disputes about individual entries can be raised on the talk page. None has. This is no reason to delete.pat8722 22:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Alcohol-related deaths, or drunk-driving convicts are objective classifications, being an alcoholic means different things to different people. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 04:52, Feb. 16, 2006

"Alcoholic" is a term whose meaning is commonly understood. No disputes have arisen on the talk page. pat8722 22:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Bhoeble 13:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A mere vote has absolutely no place/no relevance on this page. This page is for discussion/consensus building. If you feel the information should be deleted, tell us why... pat8722 22:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've added some names to this list, since we decided to delete the Famous Drinkers category. I still think we need some kind of category for drinkers, but this isn't the best possible one, and we run the risk of adding people that shouldn't be added. I personally only added names in which the article itself already stated that the person in question was an alcoholic, but I don't expect others to be as careful. Crazyale 14:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Honeypot for vandals, hard to verify. Pavel Vozenilek 17:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That an article might "attract" vandals, or "is hard to verify", is no reason for deleting the information. All wiki information needs policing, some of the best of it. The place to dispute entries is on the talk page. Entries without verification can be deleted. No disputes have yet arisen. No valid reason for deletion has been stated. The information in the category is significant and the public should not be denied ready access to it. pat8722 22:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Move to a List. It's information, and Wikipedia is about information. That disputes might arise about who belongs on the page (none have so far) is certainly not a reason to delete an article. Such disputes arise about many wiki articles and are settled on the corresponding discussion pages. There is a generally agreed upon understanding as to what the term "alcoholic" means. Alcoholism is a defining characteristic, and this article is very useful to those doing research on this topic. But I don't see why you shouldn't move the information to a "list", rather than keep it as a "category".pat8722 15:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Rename But perhaps soften it to "Diagnosed alcoholics". Diagnosis can come either from self or from a treatment experience. Seems to mitigate every anxiety listed above. Alcoholism seems to be one of those things that seems subjective—to those with no involvement, of course. A wonderful category. Wikipedia is here to rip open such subjects. It is an asset to anyone looking to study Alcoholism.Yeago 00:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or something (keep or listify or rename; do not delete) per pat8722 and Yeago. —Blotwell 05:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Would this include former alcoholics, recovering alcoholics, etc? Does it matter? How is this category useful above and beyond what could be included in the article about the person already? Peyna 05:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's useful to those reseaching famous alcholics in relationship to alcoholism. Obviously, a person who has been an alcoholic would qualify, as recovery is not the topic of the category. The category makes it easy to locate the information, which is the point. Why would you want to deprive the public of ready access to this useful information? pat8722 22:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like category could be structured as it is, or with the subcategories you suggest. *shrug*. Ask not how it is useful. It is reasonable to assume that it will be of some use to someone someday. Another wonderful,—albeit hysteria-ridden—category saved.Yeago 05:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my point about usefulness: in my opinion, categories should provide another way for a reader to learn more about a related topic, much in the way that wikilinks do, but on a different level. "Alcoholics" is a category that does not provide that. No one reads an article about someone and then thinks "Who else is an alcoholic, let me go look at this category with a million entries in it," because that is not incredibly helpful at all. If it's verifiable, then by all means include it in that person's article, but to be an alcoholic does not provide any significant logical connection to other individuals such that we should have a category for it. Categories should be considered navigation aids, and not ways to repeat information that is already contained in the article. "Alcoholics" as a category is not a helpful navigation aid because it will have far too many entries, and does not connect the articles in any reasonable way. Peyna 16:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already understand your point. You simply do not see the utility in the category—your opinion. We provide for Category:Autodidacts for those interested in that topic just as this category provides for those interested in alcoholism. We don't think to remove Autodidacts because it "repeats information" or "has a million entries". If that becomes the case, we will split it into subcategories. A category has never been utterly deleted because of its potential size. That's really silly. Oh, and as for not seeing the logical connection between these people...this category is the logical connection.Yeago 16:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A mere vote has absolutely no place/no relevance on this page. This page is for discussion/consensus building. If you feel the information should be deleted, tell us why... pat8722 22:20, 23 February 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 page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. —akghetto ^talk 10:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unstructured version of category:State lieutenant governors of the United States. State categories have been created for all states that needed one and articles put in the more specific cat. Vegaswikian 03:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.-choster 06:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Herostratus 08:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete. BD2412 T 03:40, 24 February 2006 (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.

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. —akghetto ^talk 09:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To remove the abbbrev and match cat to main airticle name. Vegaswikian 02:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. -choster 06:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. "Surgeons General" is the proper plural term for that position. -- Micahbrwn 21:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Micahbrwn. jareha 23:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination changed to suggested alternative. Vegaswikian 03:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, per revised nomination. jareha 17:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Existing category name is correct and doesn't need fixing. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using abbreviations in categories is generally not accepted so the U.S. needs to be changed. Vegaswikian 08:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with Category:Surgeons General of the United States. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support renaming TheGrappler 22:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support renaming Have no problem with Category:Surgeons General of the United States. --Micahbrwn 17:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per revised nom. - EurekaLott 05:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Surgeons General of the United States. BD2412 T 03:38, 24 February 2006 (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.

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. —akghetto ^talk 09:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To match other subcategories of Category:Figure skaters by nationality, and to distinguish from speed skaters.--Mike Selinker 01:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Bhoeble 13:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support renaming TheGrappler 22:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Pelladon 00:33, 18 February 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 page.

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

The result of the debate was rename per below. — Feb. 23, '06 [06:44] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Capitalization fix and expansion of abbreviation. jareha 01:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Reality and TV should have been separated by a space to begin with. Model Citizen 02:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support renaming TheGrappler 22:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Straightforward presentational improvement. Carina22 22:47, 17 February 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 page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. —akghetto ^talk 09:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:U.S. presidential cabinet members for the military

Appears to have existed for over a year and is empty. If kept, the U.S. needs to be changed to United States. Vegaswikian 01:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unnecessary subcategory that does not actually correspond to an organizational division in the government. Postdlf 04:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Postdlf. - choster 06:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Postdlf. Osomec 23:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT I hope I am not too far out of order for adding two sibling categories below to Vegaswikian's original proposal; I believe the cases are parallel, and Postdlf's comment is thus far the only one received.

Category:U.S. presidential cabinet members for health[edit]

Category:U.S. presidential cabinet members for education[edit]

• Delete My theory is that the creator of these categories wanted to group cabinet members by topic since their specific offices have changed and multipled over the years, e.g. Secretaries of War and of the Navy being subsumed under Defense and HEW being split into HHS and Education. But the departments don't divide neatly into such roles—which cabinet members are for trade, or for the environment, or many other potential subjects. As such I believe any utility of these categories is doomed and therefore, as they are empty and abandoned, should be deleted straight away. - choster 06:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per choster. Postdlf 20:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per choster. Osomec 23:11, 17 February 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 page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 13:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... where do I even begin on this one? "Justice" is POV, and "victims" is also POV. That doesn't leave us with much. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 01:06, Feb. 16, 2006

IMHO, this article should have been flagged NPOV before being VfD'd. Unless someone wants to argue that this list is somehow frivolous, can we please reconsider this article after it has been edited for POV? I really don't think it was given a chance--the way it was written was sure to draw a firestorm of disapproval for its consistent NNPOV, but it is a historically interesting list.Yeago 06:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename "People condemned by the Nazi justice system" is a far better title and avoids POV dispute. Easily redeemable--these people probably have existing physical records!Yeago 03:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Necessarily category, and the title is probably as neutral and accurate as it can be, unless anyone has better ideas. There is of course a trace of irony in the use of justice, but it is the neutral term; the Nazi's operated a state "justice" system, it is the question of whether or not they perpetrated injustices which is POV, albeit not very controversial. Bhoeble 13:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "victims" is POV. AFAI remember "victim" categories in the past have been deleted. --Vizcarra 17:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One of the most poorly named categories I have ever seen, and I can't think of a way to redeem it. Postdlf 01:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:of Nazi per User:Freakofnurture. No, not really. Just delete. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some reason they can't edit their own vote?Yeago 04:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*audible blink* come again? Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, I am a tested moron. Ignore that. I misread.=)Yeago 06:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've misread far worse :) Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There is a Category:Nazi concentration camp victims, which the nominated category apparently was created in ignorance of, seeing as there was no attempt to integrate the two within the category system. The nominated category also failed to place itself as a subcategory in a single people category. Though categories can of course be added easily, the lack of proper integration and interrelationship with preexisting categories should be considered as evidence of how well conceived the category itself was. Postdlf 06:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but these are correctable problems. As for claim that article is somehow ill-conceived and ignorant, I must say that both the user's page, as well as the user's contributions are full of breadth on this topic. Simply not containing this information is not grounds for deletion, although it certainly warrants a stub template.Yeago 07:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to suggest ignorance of the substantive topic, but rather ignorance of the preexisting category structure and how best to work within it. Postdlf 14:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some people are new to the technicalities of Wiki categorization. I think education is a more constructive solution so that in the future they may present categories without conflict. He should have asked for clarification (like I did, I'm equally ignorant Category_talk:Articles edited by interested parties). Maybe even tell him to RTFM =).Yeago 16:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Politically-motivated Nazi executions. GCarty 09:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't all executed.

• Comment: this category (and many others) show the need to have two (visually distinguished) levels of categories: primary and secondary ones. What I mean under primary category is indisputable and most important classification for an article, examples of secondary category would be many of be those typically appering here. Pavel Vozenilek 23:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete The category covers important topic but I see these problems: (1) theoretically unlimited size and thus poor maintainability, (2) high overlap with Category:Holocaust victims and Category:Nazi concentration camp victims (and other, ad hoc created subcategories) resulting in category clutter, (3) knowledge of being sentenced by Volksgerichtshof (a pretty poor article trying to turn itself into a list) or other courts is not common or easily verifiable knowledge (4) the name is vague and will generate lot of wrong items. My general complaint is that too many people use categories as a substitute of actually adding coherent text into articles - it is so much easier to create a category than to write coherent text and one still gets the feeling of being "contributor". Pavel Vozenilek 23:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, I took look on Julius Fučík (rather low quality, rewritten now). He was sentenced by the court but his fate was clear at the moment of his arrest, two years before. This category is technically correct here but not very much descriptive. Pavel Vozenilek 02:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That a problem as to size "might" arise in the future, is no reason to delete now. There is further no reason for supposing the size to be "theoretically unlimited", as the names of those "publicly" known to have been condemned by Nazi courts is not all that unmanagable(how large do you think it is, anyway?). The information is verifiable; there is no requirement that it be "common or easily verifiable". That there exists cross cataloging is no inherent negative. The categories provide a navigation tool, so are useful in addition to article content, but I see no problem if you are proposing the material be moved to a list before the category is deleted. As to Julius Fučík, of course he does and should qualify for this category. So what if "his fate was clear at the moment of his arrest", that changes nothing about the fact that he is among those convicted by a nazi court. The information in this list is a matter of public interest. pat8722 19:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but rename and move to a list It's information, and Wikipedia is about information. The objections here seem mostly to be that the name is poorly chosen. A poorly chosen name is certainly no reason to lose valuable article content. I suggest a rename to "List of persons condemned by Nazi courts". Such a list is very useful to those doing research on this topic. I don't see why you shouldn't move the information to a "list", rather than keep it as a "category".pat8722 15:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People here get "Delete hysteria" if you ask me. The VfD/CfD is for reaching consensus, not voting things to life or death. Surely, some things are extraneous but this is a perfectly legitimate topic. The intro to this topic suggests the topic was unsalvagable... which is so silly. In my opinion this page should focus on how to save articles, not to shoot them down.Yeago 16:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename I suggest "Persons convicted by Nazi courts". —Blotwell 05:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and maybe rename as per Blotwell. Honbicot 18:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per Blotwell. GRuban 14:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, ideally. But fallback to rename to Category:Persons convicted by Nazi courts per Blotwell. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:37, 22 February 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 page.