< February 7	February 9 >

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Completely arbitrary. This category was previously deleted per Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Wonders of the World2 Kpalion 23:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The label "Wonder of the World" is frequently used as a name for any grandiose man-made or natural phenomena. Even the London sewerage system apparently qualifies as a Wonder of the World, as it is in this category. (I will remember that the next time I use the toilet.) As the category's inclusion criteria are vague and overly-broad, the category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Approximately 13,412 places have been described as the "Eighth Wonder of the World" or "One of the Seven Wonders of the Modern World", or some other variant. Osomec 14:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, and limit its contents to those in the first section of Seven Wonders of the World.--Mike Selinker 15:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no need to have a category for just seven things Mike, a template can do the job better. AshbyJnr 16:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as an arbitrary, over-used, POV/OR term. --Xdamr^talk 00:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Boxing terms to Category:Boxing terminology

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to match Category:Sports terminology and all but one of the other such subcategories for individual sports. (I may nominate the other exception, which is Category:Auto racing terms later, but I want to look into the usage of terms like "auto racing", "motor racing" and "motor sport" first to decide which would be most appropriate, or whether there should be more than one category for different branch of.... whatever the best overall term is.)AshbyJnr 23:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Osomec 14:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the category contains three articles (one of which I just put up for deletion) and given that most of the other articles that would be housed there have been deleted (other articles on other non-notable co-ops) thus the sategory is unlikely to expand any time soon, and that all of the articles are housed both in Category:Housing cooperatives and Category:Madison, Wisconsin there seems little need to categorize by this intersction. Otto4711 22:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Madison, Wisconsin. Olborne 00:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both remaining articles are already housed in that category. Otto4711 20:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Members of the Constitution Party (United States). the wub "?!" 12:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American constitutionalists to Category:Constitutionalists (United States)

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, originally intended (and noted that way, before Mike Selinker deleted it—accidentally?) to be for CP party members, and this seems to be the formatting convention adopted for other parties. Subcats should follow, similarly. ChristTrekker 20:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Members of the Constitution Party (United States) because it is not clear that Constitutionalists (United States) is for members of a political party, indeed it just looks like a misnamed occupational category. Choalbaton 22:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Then Category:Libertarians (United States) and Category:American libertarians need to be reviewed as well, as there can be confusion between Libertarian (the former, term as a political party) and libertarian (the latter, term as a political ideology). "Constitutionalist" is the generally accepted self-name for members of the CP. The political ideology can roughly be described as paleoconservative, which we already have Category:Paleoconservatives for. Thus there is less cause for confusion here than in the Lib. case. I strongly stand by the original nom, to conform to the naming precedent for members of US political parties. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - Prefer Choalbaton's "Members of the Constitution Party (United States)" but Mike Selinker's proposal is second. Also suggest that subcategories of members by state be upmerged (without prejudice); by my count, there are <50 total people subdivided into a a bunch of states with <10 people in each. --lquilter 14:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Members of the Constitution Party (United States) per Choalbaton. Osomec 14:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't remember doing this at all. Can someone point me at a discussion?--Mike Selinker 23:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You didn't reference a discussion, but I assume it was related to this somehow. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, I see. It was an empty category after the upmerge, and then I deleted it. Gotcha.--Mike Selinker 15:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Choalbaton. If this is for members of a particular party, rather than for people who have 'constitutionalist' opinions (whatever they are), then it should be precise. Having said that, I see that this category has moved parent categories, from 'people by political opinion' to 'people by political party'.

Xdamr^talk 00:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:Avifauna of Canada to Category:Birds of Canada. Additionally, the is clear consensus to rename Category:Avifauna of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon to Category:Birds of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, Category:Avifauna of North America to Category:Birds of North America, shown in this discussion and in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_27#Birds_by_country. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Avifauna of Canada to Category:Birds of Canada

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, I apparently neglected to nominate this last time around. All of the other "Avifauna of Fooland" categories have been moved to "Birds of Fooland." See this discussion. Lesnail 20:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Simple language is best, and calling them Birds makes sense. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Osomec 14:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Subcategories too, please. Bearcat 23:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per ProveIt. Also do the subcategories and other associated categories such as Category:Avifauna of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon and Category:Avifauna of North America.--orlady 23:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all avifauna categories.--Peta 23:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Democratic National Convention venues

Category:Republican National Convention venues

The venues which host modern national conventions host many major events. A raft of BiMonSciFiCon venues-type categories which impart little additional information about them or their commonalities with each other is sure to follow. I consider this is a corollary case of performers by performance. -choster 18:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~and listify within the general articles for the conventions, if there is an article for the convention, otherwise just delete~~. The convention sites are already listed in the appropriate articles. Otto4711 18:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If people want to know this sort of information, they'll likely go to the articles, where the cities are listed. Coemgenus 20:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, category imparts little usefulness. ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These categories don't tell you anything useful, - they don't even tell you that these places are currently amongst the major convention centres in the United States. Choalbaton 22:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining or trivial characteristic. Someone's disabilities should not be a categorization criteria. Category is underpopulated and is sub-standard as well. Listify if you must. --Cat out 18:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POINT. Otto4711 18:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think WP:POINT applies. --Cat out 09:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As near as I can tell the category was nominated because someone mentioned it as a counterpoint to another category that you nominated for deletion. That strikes me as implicating WP:POINT. Otto4711 11:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to me that being without hands is fairly defining, whether that is what these people want to be known for or not, and it isn't a trivial characteristic. Lesnail 20:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them don't have arms either. Not having hands can be a list. "List of people without hands" (or pick a better name). We do not categorize follicaly challenged (bald) people now do we? --Cat out 08:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think lacking arms is more significant to most things than baldness. Being bald doesn't effect your ability to say draw or play the violin.--T. Anthony 09:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a navigation aid how is it useful? Stephen Hawkings has arms and yet can't play the violin either. Categeory:People who can't use hands or Categeory:People who can't play the violin do not sould useful as a navigation aid to me. --Cat out 12:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm did you look in the category? It has painters and a violinist who trained at a conservatory. They did those things with their feet or mouth. I didn't pick the two skills by random. I picked them as examples of their situation being relevant to the way they draw or play instruments or work. As for aiding navigation admittedly I'm not techy enough to give a good answer there. However it does make it easier to get to other articles about handless people when you're reading about one.--T. Anthony 12:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But somehow I don't really like the name. Is there a proper term for being without hands?--T. Anthony 07:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not entirely sure that this needs to be a separate subcategory from Category:Amputees, but I'm willing to vote to keep if somebody can provide a good rationale. I don't view deletion as a solution, though; IMO this should be either kept or upmerged into Category:Amputees. Bearcat 23:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with that is that a good many of the names in this specific category describe someone with a congenital condition that resulted in their having no hands or arms. See Simona Atzori, Sarah Biffen, Alison Lapper, Tony Melendez, and Carl Herman Unthan, These people don't fit in Category:Amputees and placing them their would be misleading.--T. Anthony 03:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word "amputees" does not necessarily refer only to people who used to have limbs and then lost them; a person who was born without the limbs is still referred to as an amputee. Bearcat 16:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In some cased the disabilities happen to be the defining characteristic. This would be one of them. User:Dimadick
Keep per WP:POINT, as Otto has already demonstrated. Not cool, Cat, not cool. — coelacan talk — 19:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lesnail. Agree with T. Anthony — Emiellaiendiay 04:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete as empty. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Category is essentially empty after more than one year, has a misleading name (it's not about Eden in general), and is unlikely ever to attract much in the way of additional contents. It was created in 2005 for articles about Eden, North Carolina (a fairly small town) and it still includes only one article.orlady 17:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - should never have been created

Insertformulahere

Delete as empty Category has no articles at all. Dugwiki 17:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dugwiki. I'm surprised it hasn't gotten filled accidentally with Garden of Eden articles though. Lesnail 20:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olborne 15:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 12:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - (Begin cut and paste of "network personalities" discussion.) Grouping people together according to whether they have been on a specific radio or TV network is not useful, as many people work for many different radio and TV networks over the course of their careers. This categories (and other similar categories) should be deleted. Also note the multiple discussions on 2007 February 2, 2007 February 3, 2007 February 4, and 2007 February 7 discussions on related categories. (End cut and paste of "network personalities" discussion. I wish I could locate these all at once; they do not seem to be located in any common parent category.) Dr. Submillimeter 17:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dr. Sub. Coemgenus 20:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although it might be useful to create a more precise definition such as Fox News Channel newsreaders. Tim! 10:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of these people are indeed closely associated with FOX News channel. Another option could be to create a more general category, such as US TV personalities, and redirect these people there. Biophys 17:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Personalities is not useful and it is an ambiguous term. That's why the deletions are being proposed. I guess we are getting close to deleting the Category:American television personalities category, so moving there would be a waste of time. Vegaswikian 20:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Category:American television reporters and correspondents. It is better not to have these listed by network since many of them move over time so they wind up being members of multiple network categories. Being a newscaster is more important and defining then which networks they worked for. Vegaswikian 20:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Categorizing people by employer is a bad idea. Those who change jobs will rack up multiple such categories. — coelacan talk — 21:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would believe this category could be kept, but move towards the format of the "CNN People" category, which only covers people employed by the network Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 02:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I think it should be kept, but changes could be made to improve it if deemed needed.
Comment - At this point in time, Category:MSNBC personalities, Category:ESPN personalities, Category:CBS personalities, Category:NBC Personalities, Category:American Broadcasting Company personalities, Category:Canadian Broadcasting Corporation personalities, and Category:XM Satellite Radio personalities have all been deleted in recent CFD discussions. It makes no sense to keep this category when similar categories for other networks were deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 01:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Categorization of people via association is allowed by Wikipedia standards and it allows for a connection between a person and a network, rather than the generalization of someone being a reporter or anchor. Still, I can understand that the problems of updating occurs, such as with the recent move of Kiran Chetry from Fox News Channel to CNN in the last few weeks. My only problem with this is that it generalizes people too much, causing the general categories (Anchors, Reporters) too large and possibly, with even country differentials, still ends up with lists amounting in hundreds, if not thousands. Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 06:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is another award that is given to people who are so notable that they win many awards anyway. This category, like many other award categories, contributes to the category clutter in articles on individual people while revealing little about the individuals' careers. The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 16:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Better to use list articles for award winners. See Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award Winners for discussion. Dugwiki 17:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Lesnail 20:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Osomec 15:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a minor music award given specifically to people from Detroit. This category is one of many music awards these people wins, and it adds to category clutter; see Stevie Wonder, for example. The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 16:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Better to use list articles for award winners. See Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award Winners for discussion. Dugwiki 17:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Lesnail 20:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Osomec 15:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. (All the current members appear to be American, so there's no problem there). the wub "?!" 12:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Black lawyers to Category:African American lawyers

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. We don't categorize by skin color (Category:Black people has been deleted). The parents of this category are Category:American lawyers and Category:African Americans. Sumahoy 16:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, but prune lawyers from category The rename makes sense to be consistent with the parent categories. Note, though, that as a general rule we don't categorize by ethinicity unless the ethnicity is somehow significant in the career. So this category should be restricted to lawyers for whom being African American is notably mentioned in their article as having an impact on their legal career. An example of an appropriate article would be an African American lawyer whose ethnicity led them to take part in various race-related legal actions. A bad example would be a lawyer who happens to be African American but whose article doesn't mention ethnicity playing a part in their legal practice. Dugwiki 17:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC
Rename and Keep I disagree with Dugwiki because artilces with incomplete leads such as Thurgood Marshall, who had a record of 29 wins and 3 losses as a lawyer in cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, might be removed because they don't mention that a person was a significant lawyer. The lead could be revised to include his prominence as a lawyer without mentioning that his race had an impact on his career and still be removed by this criterion. TonyTheTiger 20:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I just added a sentence to the Thurgood Marshall page so that the lead is more appropriate. TonyTheTiger 22:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which demonstrates that just because an article is missing some information doesn't mean it can't be improved later. If something is removed from the category because of information missing from the article, and you have added the appropriate info to the article, then just readd it to the category. It's not like removing an article from the category is permanent; it can be undone later if needed. Dugwiki 23:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I make the same comment I have made many times before: the list contains a number of non-Americans, and so it will need to be pruned and a separate category of non-American Black lawyers created. --Legis (talk - contributions) 20:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They should just be removed. Categorisation by race is not on, but we are stuck with the hyphenated categorisation system, which is all derived from Americans' way of dividing themselves up. Choalbaton 22:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This name change alters the intended meaning of the category, as well. Not all American people of African heritage ("African American") are black. If it was intended to be a racial category, and WP doesn't support that, nor other physical distinctions like Category:red-haired lawyers), then delete it altogether. Would we support Category:European American lawyers? Using African-American as a euphemism for black just propogates racial hyper-sensitivity. OTOH, there are many categories that follow the heritage-nationality-profession scheme (e.g. Category:Irish-American musicians), but many black Americans cannot trace ancestry to a specific political unit (e.g. Mozambique vs Nigeria). In that case, keep the category as is, since "black" describes the heritage about as well as can be done. ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename There is a lot to be said against the hyphenated-categorisation system, but as it isn't going to go away making a protest over this irregular category won't make any difference to the broader scheme of things, - but it may perpetuate an undesirable inconsistency. Choalbaton 22:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Are people from other nations who, were they to be from the United States, be called "African American" categorized on Wikipedia by race/ethnicity? If so, what term is used? Otto4711 00:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Category:Black people was deleted, just like Category:White people. The vast majority of black people live in countries where most people are black, so they are not categorised by skin colour, just as most Europeans are not categorised as White people. Osomec 15:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and prune to match the convention. Osomec 15:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something, or delete, current name is inaccurate, and US-centric. What if you're black and live in South Africa? 132.205.44.134 23:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Classifying black people by skin colour when we don't do the same for white people is patronising and racist. Olborne 15:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming all categories of format Category:Fooian-Americans to Category:Fooian Americans

Nominator's Rationale: This has been discussed before with no consensus, but I thought that since Category:American people by ethnic or national origin is still very inconsistent on hyphenation it warranted revisiting. Personally I prefer the unhyphenated for nouns and hyphenated for adjectives as it makes sense grammatically. The only instances where it makes less sense is cases of dual citizenship, which is probably a relatively small subset of these articles. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative. To avoid the spelling controversy and perhaps an implied supposition that (all) people listed under a particularly ethnicity on these pages (always) share common values as a member of the particular group of "hyphenated Americans", that for instance a third generation Italian(-)American is somehow equally Italian and American, I suggest using the alternative naming "Americans of Fooian descent". Mayumashu 17:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's unfortunately awkward, but I would be okay with that. One of my main problems with hypenation is that most, say, Italian Americans are not also Italian citizens. In other words, Italian American means to me "American citizen of Italian descent" (with no judgement of how American or Italian they feel), while Italian-American seems to imply dual citizenship. I understand, though, that not everyone reads it the same. — Laura Scudder ☎ 19:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

btw, the pages all need to be tagged Mayumashu 04:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I know all the Category:Fooian-Americans are already tagged. I don't know of any I missed, so please let me know if you found one. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. David Kernow (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, overly broad, non-defining. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kill it with fire, quickly, quickly, quickly. --Golbez 16:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I'm speedily deleting this. --Golbez 16:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POINT. Otto4711 16:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I assume that you will both be voting to delete Category:LGBT people? Sumahoy 16:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no comment; the major objection to this was because it was created by a blatant vandal, and waay too broad. That might be too, but I'm not tendering an opinion on it. --Golbez 17:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already spoken about the LGBT people categories. My !vote here was based on my belief that the category was created to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point about the LGBT catageory. Which is why I noted "per WP:POINT." Otto4711 17:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Identity categories do not need to be balanced against their opposites, especially when the opposite categories would inherently include 80 to 90 per cent of all people with Wikipedia articles. We don't need to use categories to point out that a person happens to be what's already the default assumption anyway. It's like saying that Gay Pride Day needs to be balanced by "Straight Pride Day"; the answer to that is that every day is already Straight Pride Day. Bearcat 23:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since 90%+ of people are heterosexual, the only possible reason for this category would be to categorize people whose article significantly and notably mentions their heterosexuality. My guess is no such articles exist, though. On top of that, since the great majority of people are heterosexual it is reasonably safe to assume that unless someone's article specifies otherwise, they are probably heterosexual, or if they aren't their LGBT preference isn't verified or significant. Dugwiki 17:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (use Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Familytree). --RobertG ♬ talk 10:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles which this category groups are essentially unconnected. As it is added by a template it appears first on the list of categories, ahead of the useful categories. We don't have category:Articles with infoboxes or Category:Articles with external links and this is just as bad as those would be. Piccadilly 15:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These articles have little in common. Coemgenus 15:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that people who like to read family trees would consider such a list useful. TonyTheTiger 20:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The category system is a mess already without the addition of potentially hundreds of categories based on formatting features. Choalbaton 22:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Osomec 15:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Useful Recognizing this is outside the standard use of of a category, this new user of the template finds useful to easily see how others have made use of the template. I assume I can check the "what links here" for the template to do that, right? -- Yellowdesk 21:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that this category is serving a useful purpose, as opposed to being extraneous. -- Noneofyourbusiness 19:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Categories for where a template is applied are not needed. If people are interested in this, they can look at "what links here" for the template. Dr. Submillimeter 10:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Daniel.Bryant 10:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is another award that generally goes to people who are so well-known that they win many awards anyway (such as Bill Clinton and Winston Churchill). Consequently, this award contributes to category clutter on the pages of many notable people. As has been done with other award categories recently, this category should be deleted. Note that this award's recipients are already listed at Karlspreis, so the category does not need to be listified. Dr. Submillimeter 15:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Piccadilly 15:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Coemgenus 15:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Better to use list articles for award winners. See Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award Winners for discussion. Dugwiki 17:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lesnail 20:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only additional point is refinement on Dr. S' original comment: This award is not defining for any of its recipients, who will never be introduced to a general audience as a "Karlspreis laureate". --lquilter 04:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mairi 22:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Articles on a few people such as Thomas Beckett have several categories related to being murder victims, which is excessive. This category seems to be one of the weak murder victim categories. The term "religious people" is vague, as it could refer to people who are formally designated as clergy or people who simply have strong religious beliefs. It also does not explicitly state that the individuals were killed because of religious reasons or other reasons, so priests (ministers, pastors, etc.) murdered for other reasons would fall into this category. If redefined to indicate clergy, it is unclear as to whether it should be kept. In the long term, I see little reason to subdivide murder victims according to their careers. Hence, I advocate deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 14:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Also note Category:Martyrs, for people who are murdered for religious reasons. Category:Martyrs should definitely be kept, but Category:Murdered religious people should not. Dr. Submillimeter 14:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The number of death related categories on some articles - by disease, by type of accident, by type of execution, place of execution, reason for execution, place of burial etc etc - is excessive. Piccadilly 15:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Category:Martyrs is more appropriate. Just because two people were murdered and were religious doesn't mean they have anything else in common. Coemgenus 15:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Being "religious" and "murdered" is insufficient commonality to support a category. Otto4711 15:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Category:Martyrs already exists; this one just spreads too vaguely and has no function.
Delete subjective category. See Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Doczilla 16:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though I created this. Category:Religious people is where we put folks like this. We can change that if we want, but I don't see why the subdivision of category:Murder victims (which would be colossal without subdivision) makes this a bad category.--Mike Selinker 23:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - While I respect the perspective from reading a category, look at the perspective from reading an article. Thomas Beckett has four different categories to indicate that he was a murder victim. Does he need all four categories? Dr. Submillimeter 08:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you're worried about clutter, I could argue that the category:Martyrs scheme makes more sense to eliminate. That seems to take a non-objective position, whereas category:Murdered religious people seems cleaner to me. Martyr suggests you were murdered for your faith, and that doesn't seem to be the case for, say, Matthew Winkler. So I'd eliminate the martyrs categorization before this. (Also, category:Martyrs could just become a subcategory of category:Murdered religious people, eliminating the need for someone like Thomas Beckett to have both.)--Mike Selinker 15:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there is no other subcategory of Category:Religious people that an individual belongs to, either pre-existing, or that can be created by extending one of the existing categorisation systems, they shouldn't have been added to it in the first place. AshbyJnr 16:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. Mairi 19:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Art Exhibitions into Category:Art exhibitions

Merge, Duplicate to properly named category. >>sparkit|TALK<< 12:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge Piccadilly 15:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. TonyTheTiger 20:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated. the wub "?!" 12:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Flextech to Category:Virgin Media Television

Nominator's Rationale: Also included in this discussion:

Category:Flextech television channels to Category:Virgin Media Television channels

Rename, Procedural nomination due to the rename of Flextech television to Virgin Media Television, alongside the rebrand to Virgin Media. tgheretford (talk) 12:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, as above. Pit-yacker 18:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a second thought (sorry for being awkward) how about Category:Virgin Media? which draws in all articles to do with Virgin Media e.g. (additionally) Virgin Media, Virgin Mobile, V+, FilmFlex, etc? Pit-yacker 17:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, as long as it is the parent of the two categories being discussed above, I see no problem with that suggestion. --tgheretford (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a parent category Category:Virgin Media Inc. Just as a further thought, is their any rationale for having both Category:Flextech television channels and Category:Flextech? Would it be more sensible just to have a single category Category:Virgin Media Television? Pit-yacker 03:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is another honor that is bestowed upon famous people who receive many awards and honors (e.g. Winston Churchill. This categorization is not needed, as the honor does not necessarily highlight the individuals' accomplishments. However, it does contribute to category clutter, so it should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 10:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining or trivial characteristic --Cat out 12:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; there have been only six Honorary Citizens in history, so a category seems overkill. -choster 15:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and note in each article. I would suggest that since there are only six, a listing in each of their articles would be sufficient rather than a separate list article. Otto4711 15:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Better to use list articles for award winners (which this essentially is). I imagine people who are honorary citizens of the US are also probably honorary citizens of other countries as well (a bit like the national version of getting a key to the city). See Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award Winners for discussion. Dugwiki 17:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an extremely interesting list. The fact that there have only been 6 honorary citizens says two things. 1. It says that it will not be a common problem. 2. It is not likely that people are Honorary Citizens of many countries because it is also likely that most countries do not commonly grant citizenship (unless it is concomitant with things like being Knighted). This second fact means that clutter is not a problem. Clutter would be a problem if this category was indicative of numerous other categories that would show up in an article. Adding one extemely interesting category is not clutter. Adding 25 fairly interesting ones is. TonyTheTiger 20:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please listify if deleted. TonyTheTiger 20:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please read through the main article.-choster 22:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - How many times have people asked for something to be listified when there is already a list in the main article, and one that does the job in a more encyclopedic way than a raw list of names would do? Osomec 15:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - TonyTheTiger's assessment that this does not ontribute to category clutter is invalid given that Winston Churchill, which currently contains over 35 categories, is listed in this category. Dr. Submillimeter 09:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment You missed the point. Deleting something for category clutter reasons in my mind means that this category and several like it cause several articles to have category clutter. E.G., If this were a nomination to delete a dozen honorary citizenship categories, category clutter would be a good argument. Category clutteer is a meaningless argument for a single category. TonyTheTiger 18:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - I have been working through many of the awards and honors categories that appear in the top articles in Special:Mostcategories. This is not an isolated nomination. Please see the nominations from the past week as well as more recent nominations. Dr. Submillimeter 21:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this honor really does highlight the individuals' accomplishments, and it is one of the very few award categories I think should be kept. Yes, it is given to people who receive many other awards, but it is by far one of the most prestigious awards any of them has received, especially seeing as there have as yet only been 6 awardees. Lesnail 21:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's U.S centric. Personally I would reject an offer of Honorary Citizenship of the United States, but I would accept a Nobel prize, and I accepted various school prizes as a boy. Osomec 15:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Regardless of the putative prestige of being awarded honorary US citizenship, this is not a defining award for any of them; Churchill, I feel quite certain, is not remembered by even one soul on this planet for being an honorary citizen of the US. --lquilter 04:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lquilter. Osomec 15:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coment there is also Category:Honorary citizens and subcategories for Canada and Ireland. Mairi 21:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - These have been nominated for deletion here. Dr. Submillimeter 21:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All honorary citizen categories. AshbyJnr 16:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. the wub "?!" 12:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bisexual people[edit]

Category:Ex-ex-gay people[edit]

Category:Christian LGBT people[edit]

Category:LGBT Jews[edit]

Category:LGBT Muslims[edit]

Category:Bisexual people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Ex-ex-gay people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Christian LGBT people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:LGBT Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:LGBT Muslims (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining or trivial characteristic
Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference

Being a bisexual is no more strange than being a male or female or heterosexual (or bald for that matter). If someone publicly come out as bisexual that can be mentioned on the article, no need to categorize though. Category:Male people/Category:Heterosexual people is a red link and should stay that way

I would recommend lists to group such people, not categories. --Cat out 10:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep all LGBT categories. Weak keep Ex-ex-gay people. No compelling reasons given for deletion. Merge bisexual people into LGBT people. Otto4711 13:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We do not categorize people based on their sexual preferences. Lists and articles about them are fine. --Cat out 13:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems very strange to nominate a number of categories of people by sexuality and then say "we do not categorize people based on their sexual preference". Clearly at the moment we do. WjBscribe 01:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when?--T. Anthony 15:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since forever. See the absence of Category:Heterosexual people? --Cat out 15:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is heterosexuality is normal. (This statement should tick people off, but I'm not saying whether normal is good or bad) We're not going to categorize by anything that represents 65-90% of people. We're not going to have a Category:People with two hands either, but that doesn't negate the 2 year old plus Category:People without hands--T. Anthony 15:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase you're looking for is "the norm," not "normal," since being gay, bisexual, trans and straight are all equally "normal." Otto4711 15:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT people are NOT some sort of left overs of a freak show. They are quite "normal" as far as I care. This logic of yours is precisely why this category is a bad idea. --Cat out 17:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Someone used the word "normal" and I suggested that "the norm" is the appropriate phrase and explained why. Not sure why this is leading you to engage in histrionics about logic or why you think that is some sort of support for deleting categories. Otto4711 17:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a 42 inch (107 cm) tall man with crooked feet and bent arms. My condition is osteogenesis imperfecta. (I do have hands and feet though, I'm not missing any part) One person with my condition was indeed in a "a freak show" as a "frog man." People got what jobs they could and as he was going to get stared at anyway I can see wanting to make a profit off it. I knew the word "normal" would be offensive and "the norm" is better, but "not normal" is what I use for myself. I like who and what I am, I've always been OI. I recognize though I was born different, not normal. If gays believe they are born that way, but decide to judge people like me as "left overs from a freak show", I suppose that's their right. I don't have any respect for that though, especially as they're most likely are handless people who are gay. There certainly are gay OIs, dwarfs, etc.--T. Anthony 01:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T. Anthony, I relocated my comment above yours so as not to engender confusion about the timing of the two comments. Just to clarify, I was not offended by your use of the word "normal." I'm not sure why this whole "leftovers from the freak show" thing got introduced into the discussion, but so far as I know there isn't a great deal of thought in the gay community about people with OI, let alone any judgment or active disrespect of them. Otto4711 04:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No reason there should be any opinion really, it's a rare condition. Something like 1 in 15,000, with my type being rarer still. I've just been surprised at a few forums where gay people believe they are born that way, but at the same time seem to have an attitude to dwarfs or people born different in other ways. Although in most cases when I've pointed that out to them they were apologetic and not meaning offense. I don't know if Cat is gay, nor does it really matter, but the "leftover from a freak show" thing did offend me a bit. I'm a bit surprised it did as I'm not sensitive about it, but the point is I didn't mean it to be directed at you. I referenced gays because it seemed he was pitting them as "better" somehow than other kind of people by birth condition or status or whatever is the right term. Anyway I'll try to let it go as I assume the person was just being thoughtless and not intentionally offensive. (Plus I don't want to provoke anyone to the kind condescending "oh I'm so sorry for you, etc" type apologies)--T. Anthony 07:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This form of categorization suggests that Wikipedia has a biased agenda. LukeHoC 14:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggests what bias, and to whom? I can't even fathom what bias or what agenda you might be talking about. Bias for or against LGBT people? Bias for or against categorizing? ?? --lquilter 14:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a possible bias with a few of them. Having categories for Christians or Muslims being LGBT, when so many other forms of categorization by religion are deemed unacceptable, seems a bit odd. Would we have Category:Christian albinos or Category:Christian polygamists?--T. Anthony 15:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that is the rationale behind my nomination. --Cat out 15:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A category on "Christian albinos" wouldn't make sense, because Christianity doesn't have anything to say about albinism. But "Christian polygamists" might make sense, since Christianity does have quite a bit to say about polygamy (a few sects allowing it, the great majority explicitly condemning it). For the same reason, "LGBT Christians" makes sense as a category, because most Christian sects have something to say about same-sex relationships (some embracing, some condemning). Bishop Gene Robinson, for example, a prominent gay Christian, is one of the people for whom this categorization makes sense. Islam has a similar relationship with LGBT people, so that category makes sense too. — coelacan talk — 07:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think Cat, like other identity-category deleters before, is raising this in the wrong forum. Categorizing people ought to be addressed in a broader group than CFDs usually get. It's been clear that there have been folks interested in deleting identity categories, and equally clear that while there's a lot of support for keeping them, there's not a lot of consistent rationales; so some are getting deleted & some aren't; some are getting well discussed, and some aren't. This is not something to be done on a single-week CFD. Clearly there are compelling reasons for some identity categories all the time, and all identity categories some of the time; doing it in this ad hoc fashion wastes everyone's time and is going to leave us with an inconsistent and not helpful category structure. --lquilter 14:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a deleter. Being bald is an identity too, nothing worth categorizing though. This is the right forum for "Categories for discussion" --Cat out 14:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being queer is generally more of a factor in one's identity than being bald. The two are not comparable. Otto4711 15:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure Patrick Stewart would disagree. --Cat out 09:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is your source for this contention? Otto4711 11:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems like several things are up for delete here, some of which are more sensible nominees than others. I think the way this is done is going to get some "delete this and that one, but not the other" type comments, which will be confusing and invite no concensus. Even if it succeeds it's not going to eliminate all LGBT categories so we'll simply have a bunch of LGBT categories existing in a kind of unexplained vacuum.--T. Anthony 15:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially then I say Keep for now even though I think some of these deserve deletion. Later we/y'all whatever can vote on many of the subcats of Category:LGBT people as I think there are a disproportionate amount. This is particularly true with Category:LGBT people by occupation, which has several subcats which would not be acceptable for other people with genetic or other variations.--T. Anthony 15:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As has been pointed out on here before, the bias underlying these categories is systemic in nature. They show that western liberals - who account for maybe 5% of the global population at the very most - have disproportionate influence in Wikipedia. People outside that relatively tiny group would never think to categorise in this way. Piccadilly 15:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a rather bold assertion. Do you perhaps have a shred of evidence to support it? Otto4711 15:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, but your question is little more than a rhetorical trick. How does one prove a negative? But you must know as well as I do that this emphasis on highlighting sexual orientation is a recent thing and a liberal Western thing at that. I don't think there is any reasonable doubt that there would have been no such category on the English language wikipedia not so long ago. And if you want to do that go ahead, but I say you will just being making an intellectual point for the sake of it. Please deal in reality, not in abstractions. In the real world prioritising sexual identities is to push the worldview of just one group of people. LGBT categories are usually an irrelevant intrusion into articles where there is no need to address gender politics. Piccadilly 17:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I don't know it just as well as you, or I wouldn't have asked the question. And whether there would or wouldn't have been such particular categories on the English Wikipedia at any time in the past strikes me as irrelevant. LGBT history is a legitimate and recent field of study and part of LGBT history is the history of people who are or were LGBT. Categories of LGBT people are extremely useful in resarching LGBT history and for that reason alone warrant keeping. If you want to look at individual subcategories under the LGBT people category, then fine, we can certainly do that. But seeking to dismantle a vast category tree in this fashion strikes me as disingenuous at best. Otto4711 17:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as impossible to determine conclusively. How do you determine if someone belongs on this list? When he proclaims it? When he is generally assumed to fit one or more categories? None of these categories are discrete groups; some people straddle the borders of sexuality, just as some straddle the borders of race or politics. To attempt to pigeonhole everyone will be fruitless and contentious. Coemgenus 15:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, explicit proclamation will do it. That works just fine for a criterion, so I don't see what your issue is here. — coelacan talk — 08:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all categories by sexuality. It looks like a serious attempt is underway to deal with category clutter on biographical articles and it is to be commended. Sumahoy 16:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate category clutter as much as the next guy (unless the next guy is Dr Submillimeter, but I digress), but alleviating category clutter is not the end-all and be-all. If categories are reasonable and legitimate and utilized then they should be retained even if it means people have to slog through a few extra blue links. Otto4711 17:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These categories are only appropriate for people whose articles specifically mention their LGBT status as a significant factor in their related history. The categories LGBT Jews and LGBT Muslims are only useful if, for example, the person's sexuality played a significant role in their religious life, such as a hypothetical gay rabbi who actively promoted more LGBT tolerance in the Jewish community. Articles should not be placed in these categories for people who just "happen" to be LGBT, such as an actor rumored to be gay who never "came out". So whether or not these are kept will depend on whether or not after pruning out inappropriate articles anything is left to categorize. Dugwiki 18:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, someone who are notble to LGBT history can be tagged accordingly Category:LGBT activists is fine (I just made that up, not sure what the preferred categorization scheme is) --Cat out 18:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone who is important in gay history is a "gay activist" so trying to shoehorn people into that category is inaccurate. As far as putting the category on someone who is tumored to be gay but who never came out, of course we would not do that as it violates WP:V. Otto4711 19:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - All gay categories above. Being gay, lesbian or bisexual is perhaps an even more fundamental aspect of a person than being an American or British. Are we going to be deleting Gay Writers and keeping American Writers? The nom makes no sense. Why not delete People from Utah as it's a trivial aspect of a person? Wjhonson 18:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The nom makes sense. Since being a non-LGBT is not worth being on a category, neither should being LGBT --Cat out 18:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there were a systemic bias that led to the assumption that everyone were homosexual then this might be a valid point. Otto4711 19:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep most. Delete Category:Ex-ex-gay people. This classification is a defining characteristic and should be sourced for every person contained within these cats. I disagree with the statement that being gay/bisexual is the same as being bald. Being bald is something that generally does not generate a published work. --- RockMFR 18:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In regards to a person's LGBT status or identification not being notable, I think the very existance of coming out argues against it. In regards to what determines the inclusion of someone in such a category, I maintain the same line I do at the lists -- self-identification. When a public figure self-identifies as gay, bisexual or transgender there is press coverage, interviews etc. If it weren't socially significant, it wouldn't receive coverage. Regarding Category:Ex-ex-gay people, I'd suggest rename or listify. A glance at the ex-gay article is enough to show that the success rates of the program(s) are under controversy, but I'm not sure the name is appropriate. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 23:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete "LGBT" categories. What do lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered people have in common? Little I can see besides not falling under the specific category of pure heterosexuals who have stuck to their natural gender. As such, a single category to encompass the four (OK, so maybe they're only three really) categories is like Category:People who don't live in Costa Rica would be. -- Smjg 00:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The use a phrase like "stuck to their natural gender" leads me to believe that the person using it has such an imperfect understanding of the basics of human sexuality that their opinion on this matter is so ill-informed as to be useless. Otto4711 00:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your answer can be found at the LGBT article, Smjg. Since there is an article, the category is acceptable here. — coelacan talk — 08:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (though Delete Category:Ex-ex-gay people). Every addition to the categories must be properly sourced per WP:BLP and WP:V, if this is not established in their article they should not be in the category. But that does not mean the category requires deletion. It is necessary to breakdown categories of people into meaningful subcategories. Sometimes those categories may not be of earth-shattering consequence in those people's lives e.g. age or nationality. Nonetheless the navigability of people categories is increased by those listings. However, often the fact that people are gay or bisexual is an important fact about them, especially when it is a matter of controversy in their culture or occupation. I would love to agree that being gay or bisexual is no big deal and not worth mentioned. Sadly it remains something taken very seriously across the world and the source of a great deal of comment and discrimination. WjBscribe 01:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. Per policy at Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, "General categorization by race or sexuality is permitted". The policy clearly mandates the existence of: Category:LGBT people and Category:Bisexual people. I suggest that a change to that policy would be necessary before those can be deleted. WjBscribe 02:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: This is about the intersection of two different variables. Policy says that this kind of intersection is overcategorization and should be avoided. Doczilla 06:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Male porn stars makes sense Category:Male people do not. LGBT people should follow the same logic. Being LGBT and Jew/Muslim/Christian is intersecting sexual preference and religion which isn't very helpful. A Cat:LGBT Imams or LGBT Bishops however would make sense. --Cat out 08:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- DocZilla, you are mistaken. You will not be able to cite such policy because the policy does not say that. Intersecting categorization is appropriate when a head article can be written for the category. In the intersection cases here, the relevant articles are Homosexuality and Judaism, Homosexuality and Christianity, and Homosexuality and Islam. — coelacan talk — 08:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep all. LGBT-ness is a huge issue in society today, and therefore notable. What do LGBT people have in common? Ask the thousands of advocacy groups with some form of "LGBT" in their name. Volumes have been written on every aspect of being LGBT; this confirms notability. --Alynna 02:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment: I see "ex-ex gay" as a useful category, because it is a culturally significant phenomenon. The implication isn't that the people switched sexuality twice, it's that they went through programmes intended to make them straight and later said "hey, i'm still gay". The category could be renamed, although "ex-ex-gay" is the term I've heard most for it. --Alynna 00:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Would any who are for deletion be saying the same things about Category:African Americans, as an example? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a sexual preference? Once an African American is born, he/she cannot change his/her ethnicity/race. Same can not be said about sexual preference. --Cat out 08:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This opinion about sexual orientation is not supported by objective science. Otto4711 21:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. There are less LGBT people than non-LGBT, this is the reason for the categories. It's no more bias than Category:African Americans. Schoolboy123 10:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pulling admin rank here for a minute. Deletion of the main Category:LGBT people category has been tried numerous times before and failed; no compelling reason has been presented to revisit it yet again. That one is therefore being shut down by me immediately. The others will be left open for discussion, although my own view on the matter is keep all. Category:Ex-ex-gay people, in particular, must exist as long as Category:Ex-gay people does. But the general parent category is not up for debate. Bearcat 11:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That strikes me as slightly high-handed. I think it was pretty clear the discussion of the parent category was not going to go delete. Also I don't agree that Category:Ex-gay people necessitates Category:Ex-ex-gay people. Category:Former Muslims doesn't necessitate "Ex-Former Muslims." At the very least "Ex-ex-gay people" is awkward enough to merit a rename of some kind. (Maybe "Formerly ex-gay" or something)--T. Anthony 11:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the first part, the only response I care to give is WP:SNOW. To the second part, the difference is that ex-gays are an organized movement that actively promotes the renunciation of gay identity as a more moral alternative to the gay lifestyle, and then has some of its proponents later step back out of and publicly denounce the movement. There's nothing remotely comparable about being a former Muslim: no organized movement, no notions of submitting to a higher morality, no active promotion, no subsequent denunciation of their original renunciation. Just a bunch of people who chose to stop practicing Islam for their own unique personal reasons. Nothing you could actually write an article about the way you can about the ex-gay movement. Bearcat 12:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. These categories are clearly in violation. Doczilla 16:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC) As I mention in a reply above but need to add to my original remark, the policy I cite is about the intersection of two variables. This combination of variables is to be avoided in categorization. Doczilla 06:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- DocZilla, you are mistaken. Intersecting categorization is appropriate when a head article can be written for the category. It says right there at Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Special subcategories, "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. You should be able to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) for the category — if this cannot be done, then the category should be seen as not valid. ... At all times, the bottom line remains can a valid, encyclopedic head article be written for this grouping?" In the intersection cases here, the relevant articles are Homosexuality and Judaism, Homosexuality and Christianity, and Homosexuality and Islam. So I'm afraid you've misread the guidelines. — coelacan talk — 08:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep all as highly defining characteristic. I will assume good faith and also not question anyone's motivations. "Ex-ex-gay" however, can be deleted, as all these people count under "ex-gay" as well was "gay". It also suggests one can flip sexuality back and forth. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zythe. Tim! 10:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gay, lesbian, whatever, people are no diffrent from straight people. We should not categorize people by whom they have sex with. If thats the case, wee need a category for everything, people who have sex with animals, people who have sex with machines, people who have sex with themselves. This kind of categorization only serves to segregate gay people further, which is something Wikipedia, a haven of neutrality should avoid. Also, wouldn't being a "Christian LGBT person" be quite impossible? (Animedude 09:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it aims to convey the situation as it is, not as someone believes it should be. Half the articles in Category:LGBT show clearly that there is a societal difference between straight people and LGBT people, that being LGBT is socially controversial, to say the least. Also, the point of the Christian LGBT people category is that no, to many people it's not a contradiction in terms. LeaHazel : talk :

There are societal difference between Star Trek fans and people who arent star Trek fans, and being a Star Trek Fan can be socially controversial. Should Trekkies get a categorey? While we are at it Why not create seperate categoreis for people who prefere Kirk over Picard. This is silly as we all know Picard is the superior captain. (Animedude 07:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

contribs 11:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument, animedude, is faulty. You compare a gay person to someone who engages in bestiality! ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was jsut making thep oint that who or what someone has sex with should be used to categorize them. (Animedude 07:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It's a good thing it's not about sex, then. Whatever your sexual orientation, did it not exist before you had sex for the first time? Were you asexual before then? Orientation is about attraction and relationships, not simply about sex. In any case, you're wrong about how Wikipedia should categorize. Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality explicitly says, "General categorization by race or sexuality is permitted". And CFD is not the place to discuss policy changes. — coelacan talk — 08:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is very much about sex. What defines a "gay" person. Whom they have sex with. Namely memebers of the same sex. Other than that a "gay" person is NO diffrent from a straight person and to suggest otherwise is a form of discrimination. I am "straight", and I would not think myself diffrent or better than someone who isn't. Sexual attrraction is about sex. It is who you would lIKE to have sex with, even if you arent at the time. Up to a certain age, we are pretty much asexual. Until that point a person would not know if they were "gay" or straight" so this proves that the diffrences is not so great. (09:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

Many gay people report that they knew they were gay before they hit puberty, so it can't simply be sexual desire. I don't have the scholarly cites for you off the top of my head, but Oprah did a show on this,[1] and you should also read the comments section of this blog post at Pam's House Blend.[2] Even in adulthood, people may have a gay orientation without being interested in sex. Some people have very low libido, but this is not the same as being asexual; they may still have an orientation. The American Psychological Association points out that "sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual or affectional attraction to another person".[3] It may be called "sexual" orientation, but this is in reference to orientation toward a sex, not just sexual intercourse. It is not just about who you may want to have sex with, it is also about who you want to hold hands with. If you're concerned about prejudice, you should be aware that people learn tolerance by realizing that they know someone who is lgbt. The closet is detrimental to tolerance, and pretending that orientation isn't important, shouldn't be known, or shouldn't be talked about, just puts all of society into a closet. I'm starting to get off track of this CFD, though, so it might be best to continue this at my talk page. — coelacan talk — 09:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. These categories are in violation. Sexual orientation is private matter. Biophys 17:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe it is at all in violation. To me, it suggests that things are relevant to one another - no categories for LGBT quantum physicists, but perhaps one for LGBT Christians, as that's a particular cultural area. To deny that LGBT issues are unimportant to society and suggest that they should be removed from sight or not discussed by an encyclopedia is frightening.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Biophys, you are mistaken. Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality explicitly says, "General categorization by race or sexuality is permitted", as well as "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. You should be able to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) for the category — if this cannot be done, then the category should be seen as not valid. ... At all times, the bottom line remains can a valid, encyclopedic head article be written for this grouping?" In the intersection cases here, the relevant articles are Homosexuality and Judaism, Homosexuality and Christianity, and Homosexuality and Islam. And sexual orientation is not a private matter, sorry. — coelacan talk — 08:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:LGBT people, Merge Category:Bisexual people & Category:Ex-ex-gay people into that. Delete LGBT religion based cats and strongly Encourage nom to individually list CfD's like this in the future since it is virtually impossible to give fair consideration of the merits of each one when they are lumped together. Reason for Keep Being LGBT has a profound impact on people's lives and is fair categorization. Reason for Merge both of these categories essentially fall under the umbrella of LGBT-even the "ex-ex" though I can see some merit of a sub-category if there were more relevant articles to list. Reason for deletes While there is a notable consideration of belonging to a religion that vehemently condems your lifestyle, it is not distinctly notable by itself and does delve into some of the "over categorization". Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Special subcategories, "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. You should be able to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) for the category — if this cannot be done, then the category should be seen as not valid. ... At all times, the bottom line remains can a valid, encyclopedic head article be written for this grouping?" In the intersection cases here, the relevant articles are Homosexuality and Judaism, Homosexuality and Christianity, and Homosexuality and Islam. — coelacan talk — 08:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I second Zythe that the categories are relevant. LGBT scientists do not comprise a field, but including religion-based categories for LGBT people does make sense, considering the significant hostility of most religions to homosexuality/bisexuality/transgenderism. The fact that people are out as both members of their particular religions and as LGBT people indicates that they contribute to the LGBT religious community. They're valid categories, as long as they're accurate. The other categories listed are also valid. — Emiellaiendiay 20:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Zythe, --Epeefleche 23:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all All of these people are notable, and there is no logical rason I can see to delete any of these categories.--Sefringle 06:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You know Cat (the requestor), It probably was not a smart move to show that you believe being gay is a choice. If you want to get your request approved, it's not wise to annoy half the audience with such a statement. Better to keep your cards hidden. Wjhonson 08:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. I agree with Bearcat that Category:Ex-ex-gay people must be kept as long as Category:Ex-gay people is kept. I've made all my other arguments clear earlier in the CFD. I would not have prejudice toward a future merge of Category:Bisexual people into Category:LGBT people, but I don't think this nomination is an appropriate forum to get a full hearing on that issue and I oppose such a merge at this time. A separate nomination would be necessary to get a complete discussion for such consensus. — coelacan talk — 08:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good gods, KEEP ALL The reason there isn't a category for "heterosexual people" is the same for why there isn't one for "Non-muslim" people or "non-atheist" people. We're talking about dialectics here, not just dichotomies. --Chalyres 10:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: keep all. To address a concept raised by Otto4711, there is a systemic bias that leads to the assumption that everyone is heterosexual. Category:LGBT people serves an important purpose. Joie de Vivre 16:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Strong oppose to deletion of Category:Bisexual people. Bisexual people are often assumed to be either gay or straight, based on their current affiliations and relationships; this pattern renders them invisible. Biracial and multiracial people experience similar phenomena by being assumed to be of either one race or another, based on circumstance. If a person has come out as bisexual, there should well be a category for them. Joie de Vivre 16:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep all per Bearcat and Coelacan. Raystorm 21:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP ALL - or is there a move on Wikipedia to pretend that :GBT people don't exist at all? Jeffpw 05:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for category:LGBT people, category:Bisexual people, sexual orientation is not private, but a vital part of many people's identity. C mon 08:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Related discussion. There is a related discussion happening at Afd where lists of LGBT people (List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people and List of bisexual people have been nominated for deletion. Those involved in this discussion may also like to comment on that Afd, which can be found here. WjBscribe 08:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining or trivial characteristic
Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference

I think categorizing people by religion is a bit redundant. Because religion/gender is so broad, we have to have categories like Category:People by nationality and religion, Category:People by religion and occupation when we already have Category:People by nationality, Category:People by occupation. If someone is a Muslim, that can very well be mentioned in the article, if someone is a Christian that can just as easily be mentioned.

Categorizing people arbitrarily based on their religion, gender, favorite color isn't very helpful. --Cat out 10:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you being sincere or making a point?--T. Anthony 12:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously think "religion" based categories are unhelpful. Grated there exists people renound for religion which can be categorized based on that accordingly. In other words what I am saying is "Cat:Bishops by country" is fine and helpful, while "Cat:Christians by country" is not. --Cat out 13:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay than I think you're off base. At the very least they're useful as parent categories. Category:Christian religious leaders and Category:Christian hymnwriters seem related enough to justify a parent that includes both. Same with Category:Buddhist nuns and Category:Buddhist sangha or Category:Islamic religious leaders and Category:Islamic scholars.--T. Anthony 15:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. You can categorize them to Christianity if they are relevant to the religion with their works. Categorizing ordinary people by religion is a very bad idea. Mixing religion and nationality/ethnicity does not make things any better (as done in subcategories which are often underpopulated). --Cat out 18:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except for your saying it's a bad idea what do you base this on? In addition to that the reasons you state in the nomination don't apply. The first is about trivial or non-defining characteristics. To say that a person's religion is trivial is very debatable and I would say it's false in enough cases that this justification makes no sense. The other "overcategorization" is referring to cases where an intersection is not culturally recognized. Simply being Christian, or Muslim or Sikh, is not an intersection. That "Sikhs" or "Jains" or even "Swedenborgians" are a culturally recognized entity seems well established.--T. Anthony 07:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Religion is a fundamental aspect of human society. LukeHoC 14:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So fundamental it is pointless to categorize based on it. --Cat out 15:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense. This argument would make sense only if the attribute were ubiquitously, equally and significantly fundamental to each person (like gender), and simultaneously irrelevant to how they were treated by other people (not at all like gender). Religion fails the test on both counts. --lquilter 14:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I concur with Lquilter... it really doesn't make any sense at all to deny the obvious because it is a fundamental part of the way society is. Ansell 23:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep While religion is usually irrelevent to why someone is notable, it is often a defining characteristic in their lives. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and can be mentioned in the article. Do not see the point why we need a navigation aid... --Cat out 14:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think Cat, like other identity-category deleters before, is raising this in the wrong forum. Categorizing people ought to be addressed in a broader group than CFDs usually get. It's been clear that there have been folks interested in deleting identity categories, and equally clear that while there's a lot of support for keeping them, there's not a lot of consistent rationales; so some are getting deleted & some aren't; some are getting well discussed, and some aren't. This is not something to be done on a single-week CFD. Clearly there are compelling reasons for some identity categories all the time, and all identity categories some of the time; doing it in this ad hoc fashion wastes everyone's time and is going to leave us with an inconsistent and not helpful category structure. --lquilter 14:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overbroad. While capable of categorization in most cases, listing people by religion will produce no result except some really long lists. Unless the religion is very small and the co-religionsists are noteworthy because of their faith (e.g. the Branch Davidians, I'd say no category by religion should exist. Coemgenus 15:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per LukeHoC and ProveIt. --(trogga) 16:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep religion is an important (or even defining) characteristic in many people's lives, so it is not a "trivial characteristic". And the category being discussed isn't an "Intersection by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference", as it's not an intersection at all, so I'm not sure how that's even applicable. At minimum, these are useful as parent categories as T. Anthony mentioned. And if there's enough people of a given religion, for whom religion is a defining or important characteristic, that the category becomes unwieldy, it can probably be subcategorized meaningfully (as many of the categories are now). Mairi 18:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is trivial to categories based on peoples faiths. Their religion can be mentioned in the article. People's hair style, eye color, religion, height, and other such information is encyclopedic but is trivial for categorization. --Cat out 08:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you consider non-trivial for categorization?--T. Anthony 10:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seem to be a helpful category. Biophys 17:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We categorize people all the time. Category should stay.--Sefringle 06:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I agree with lquilter that CFD is absolutely the wrong place for discussing what are effectively sweeping changes to policy. I would not be opposed to having a separate, ongoing policy discussion elsewhere. — coelacan talk — 19:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Denying that people have religious affiliations is farcical. Saying that these religious affiliations are trivial is like trying to say that human history is trivial, they are seriously that closely combined. Ansell 23:41, 14 February 2007 (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 section.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining or trivial characteristic
Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference

Sub categories involve: Category:Men's magazines/Category:Women's magazines which are not people. Category:Men's magazines/Category:Women's magazines is alright on its own but the magazines themselves are not people. Most of the subcats do not involve people but the gender related stuff such as organizations, magazines and etc.

About half of the planet is male and other half female so the categorization is too broad.

In any case categorizing people arbitrarily based on their religion, gender, favorite color isn't very helpful. --Cat out 10:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gender is a fundamental aspect of human society. LukeHoC 14:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How are magazines people? --Cat out 14:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think Cat, like other identity-category deleters before, is raising this in the wrong forum. Categorizing people ought to be addressed in a broader group than CFDs usually get. It's been clear that there have been folks interested in deleting identity categories, and equally clear that while there's a lot of support for keeping them, there's not a lot of consistent rationales; so some are getting deleted & some aren't; some are getting well discussed, and some aren't. This is not something to be done on a single-week CFD. Clearly there are compelling reasons for some identity categories all the time, and all identity categories some of the time; doing it in this ad hoc fashion wastes everyone's time and is going to leave us with an inconsistent and not helpful category structure. --lquilter 14:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A substantial number of by-gender categories have survived deletion nominations (while others have rightly been deleted). As there are multiple relevant subcategories it follows as a matter of course that there should be a holding category. Sumahoy 16:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This category was recently created. It is not the parent category. See this --Cat out 17:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as no legitimate basis has been offered for the nomination. The nominator proffers, in bold, sexual preference, but the last time I checked one's actual sex/gender was not the same thing as one's sexual preference or orientation. The two subcategories, Men's magazines and Women's magazines, are not direct subcats of People by gender but are instead subcats of the categories "Men" and "Women" respectively. These two subcats are for topics relating to men or women, which Men's magazines and Women's magazines clearly do. I am baffled as to why the subcats are offered up as a reason to support this nomination. Otto4711 17:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The current "People by gender" would be intended to sort people (bad idea), not magazines. It is failing to even do that. The subcats (Cat:Men/Cat:Women) are fine as they are. --Cat out 18:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but correct sub-subcategories which aren't actually about people This is a useful parent category for subcategorizing those categories which legitimately include the gender of the person as a significant factor. (Usually, gender isn't notable, but in some cases the person's gender significantly affects their career, for example, and thus can be used for categorization). However, the nominator does bring up a valid point that this is supposed to be a parent category for subcategories about people. So the magazine related categories mentioned in the nomination should be removed as subcategories, as well as any other subcategory which isn't specifically about people. Dugwiki 18:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Men and Category:Women (the only sub categories) are about the terms about Men and Women such as Men/Women magazines/organizations/etc. They were never intended to sort people. --Cat out 18:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Cat, am I understanding based on your subsequent comments that your proposal here is intended only to eliminate the intermediate category level between Category:Gender and Category:Men / Category:Women? So that the path is Gender ---> Men/Women instead of Gender ---> People by gender ---> Men/Women? Otto4711 00:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Something like that yes. --Cat out 08:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on this statement. With this clarification that the nom is solely for the purpose of simplifying the category tree, it's reasonable to eliminate the layer of sub-categorization. Note that this is not a comment on any particular sub-cat of the MEN or WOMEN sub-cats. Otto4711 11:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I wrote this earlier but apparently cmt didn't show up. I created the cat because the sub & supercategories were inconsistent. Category:Women and Category:Men already included both people and things relating to women/men. But (if I recall correctly) they were treated inconsistently with each other, and not both accessible under both people/things category trees. So I created the container category as a fix for one of those problems. Probably not the best fix -- cleaning them up might have been better -- but it was a reasonable quick fix at the time. ... Regardless: Unless someone thinks it is never appropriate to include gender in a category (and I'm sure we have some of those people here), then there will be people who will be classed as "female X" or "men of X" and the like; and it seems reasonable to me to have a category which groups them. YMMV. I'm going to try to resist debating these CFDs, however, because the forum is so imperfect, and the nominations are so ad hoc, that I think it is impossible to come up with a reasonable, consistent, coherent, approach here. --lquilter 01:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The earlier comment showed up; it's in the People by religion nom just up the list. Otto4711 02:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seem to be helpful category as it is right now.Biophys 17:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this category is redundant when we have Category:People by ethnic or national origin (strangely a subcat of this category) Cat out 10:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might be better to delete the other way around. We only need one of the two. --Cat out 13:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think Cat, like other identity-category deleters before, is raising this in the wrong forum. Categorizing people ought to be addressed in a broader group than CFDs usually get. It's been clear that there have been folks interested in deleting identity categories, and equally clear that while there's a lot of support for keeping them, there's not a lot of consistent rationales; so some are getting deleted & some aren't; some are getting well discussed, and some aren't. This is not something to be done on a single-week CFD. Clearly there are compelling reasons for some identity categories all the time, and all identity categories some of the time; doing it in this ad hoc fashion wastes everyone's time and is going to leave us with an inconsistent and not helpful category structure. --lquilter 14:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this way round. I tried to get this done like a year ago and there was a no consensus if I remember correctly. "race" is not as appropriate a word to use as "ethnicity" as I understand their denotations/connotations. so, what, are there 3 races - Asians, Blacks, and Whites?? perhaps there is a shed of truth in such a portrayal, but the term "ethnic or national origin" allows for a far better (yet needless to say not wholly accurate) one Mayumashu 18:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Race is an important biological parameter. This is not the same as Category:People by ethnic or national origin. Also, take a look at sub-category "Eurasians". This does not duplicate Category:People by ethnic or national origin. Someone who is a professional anthropologist could comment better. Biophys 17:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Category:people by race. We have ethnicity. What we don't have is people by race--Sefringle 06:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I agree with lquilter that CFD is absolutely the wrong place for discussing what are effectively sweeping changes to policy. — coelacan talk — 19:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Category has only two member articles. Realkyhick 07:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The family association can be shown through links in the text. A category is unnecessary. Dr. Submillimeter 10:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When I created Category:Sports broadcasting families The intent was that families would be grouped as subcategories and included. Including individual members will make it hard to use this category in the way it was designed. Although individuals could be default sorted by last name it is not always the case that every individual from a family carry the same surname as its most famous members. At the proper section in my user page you can see better what I am trying to do. Off the top of my head I don't know a good example in this category. However, off the top of your head how many people remember Karl Malone's daughter's name? If I created a category Category:Malone family and placed it in Category:Basketball families that I have created, you might better be able to find his daughter if you did not want to read through his lengthy article to find that his daughter's name is Cheryl Ford. TonyTheTiger 20:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per deletion of many other such family categories. It's not like there's only one family in the world with that name. Doczilla 17:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Prolog 20:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom - only two members!!Conrad Falk 23:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Canadian players of Canadian football, see also a related discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mayumashu 18:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as suggested - it is ludicrous the way it currently appears.Conrad Falk 23:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:American players of Canadian football, see also a related discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mayumashu 18:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename.--Mike Selinker 21:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Mount Holyoke College alumni, convention of Category:Alumni by university in the United States and October 3rd discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a women's college. "Alumni" means that at least one member of the group in question is male. "Alumnae" means all are female, and is correct in this instance. In spite of the October 3rd discussion, I think grammatical correctness is superior to uniformity of categories. Coemgenus 15:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. "Alumni" is a unisex form. The presence of any "alumnae" categories, however, implies that coexisting "alumni" categories are for males only. Either all categories for all institutions need to be "alumni" or categories for coeducational institutions all need to be "alumni and alumnae" in form.-choster 22:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Alumni is unisex, and is a perfectly serviceable word for this category. Thus, consistency should rule.--Mike Selinker 21:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename.--Mike Selinker 21:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Barnard College alumni, convention of Category:Alumni by university in the United States and October 3rd discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a women's college. "Alumni" means that at least one member of the group in question is male. "Alumnae" means all are female, and is correct in this instance. In spite of the October 3rd discussion, I think grammatical correctness is superior to uniformity of categories. Coemgenus 15:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For the same reasons as last time. Consistency in categories is a good thing and not trumped by local usage among Barnard alumnae. --Orange Mike 17:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as with Holyoke above. "Alumni" is a unisex form. The presence of any "alumnae" categories, however, implies that coexisting "alumni" categories are for males only. Either all categories for all institutions need to be "alumni" or categories for coeducational institutions all need to be "alumni and alumnae" in form.-choster
- Comment Alumni is not "unisex." It is a Latin masculine plural which, as in all Romance languages, includes both an all-male group and a group with members of both sexes. To say "alumni and alumnae" is redundant. Perhaps it's just part of the problem of using foreign phrases in English: other languages have different rules. If you want to follow English usage, why not rename to Category:Barnard College graduates? Coemgenus 19:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In Latin, "alumni" is masculine. In English, "alumni" refers to men only or both men and women in every dictionary I've checked. I wouldn't object to "Former students of Foo" as a standard form, which was previously the standard form in UK categories, as "graduates" is too restrictive.-choster 15:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename after taking a quick look at the meaning of alumnae, I would have to support the rename. Since many of the other articles use alumni, it seems best to keep it that way. - kc12286 03:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)kc12286[reply]
Rename. Alumni is unisex, and is a perfectly serviceable word for this category. Thus, consistency should rule.--Mike Selinker 21:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Daniel.Bryant 10:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as categorization by name. -- Prove It ^(talk) 05:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Articles categorized by name often have little else in common with each other. Dr. Submillimeter 10:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lesnail 21:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Surreal films → Category:Surrealist films

Merely saying that a film is "surreal" has the appearance of an unqualified opinion. A film using techniques of surrealism and/or being produced as part of the surrealism movement would be better described as a "surrealist film". See also Surrealism#Surrealism in film and other subcategories of Category:Surrealism, such as Category:Surrealist paintings. — CharlotteWebb 02:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per usual genre descriptions of surrealist works (hey where's Category:Surrealist fiction?). --lquilter 05:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Isn't this category a recreation? Doczilla 06:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nomination. >>sparkit|TALK<< 04:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per above. Andrzejbanas 19:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge all. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historical people of the Caribbean into Category:Caribbean people
Category:Historical people of Barbados into Category:Barbadian people
Category:Historical people of the British Virgin Islands into Category:People of the British Virgin Islands
Category:Historical people of Haiti into Category:Haitian people
Category:Historical people of Jamaica into Category:Jamaican people

Merge all since historical is subjective, see also discussion of February 4th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all - "Historical" is an unnecessary subjective term. Presumably anyone with an article in Wikipedia is already a "historical" person. Dr. Submillimeter 10:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to avoid subjectivity. Coemgenus 15:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As above, words like "historical" and "notable" aren't necessary since all Wiki bios are supposedly about notable individuals. Dugwiki 18:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all Category is POV and OR. I could call anyone historical that I wanted too and add them to this category. —mikedk9109^SIGN 21:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:Theological colleges and seminaries in England to Category:Seminaries and theological colleges in England. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Theological colleges and seminaries in England to Category:Seminaries and theological colleges in England

Rename, change word order to match the parent Category:Seminaries and theological colleges. Greg Grahame 02:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would remove the work Seminaries altogether as it is almost never used in the UK. It is North American usage. I can understand it being in the parent category but they are not seminaries as such. We need to get it right. So my vote is to Rename to Category:Theological colleges in England. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. In reply to Kevinalewis, according to google someone has added tens of thousands of references to seminaries to UK websites. I wonder why they bothered if the term is not used in the UK? Osomec 15:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Asian seminaries and Category:European seminaries into Category:Seminaries and theological colleges. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Asian seminaries into Category:Seminaries and theological colleges

Category:European seminaries into Category:Seminaries and theological colleges

Merge, The names don't comply with the parent or with the usual format for categories of buildings, but it would in any case by better to subcategorise by country (as well as by denomination of course) and there are few articles here, so merge and then reallocate by country. Greg Grahame 01:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in favor of categorization by nationality. Sumahoy 16:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Osomec 15:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Seminaries and theological colleges in Canada. Mairi 22:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian seminaries to Category:Seminaries and theological colleges in Canada

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, for same reasons as U.S. category below. Greg Grahame 01:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Lesnail 21:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Osomec 15:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Daniel.Bryant 10:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only two articles, expansion unlikely, notable, but probably not enough. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unlikely ever to be sufficiently expanded to justify a category. Coemgenus 15:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual people should only very rarely have eponymous categories. Normally all the links you need related to a person are easily accessible from their main article, so creating a unique category isn't needed. Dugwiki 18:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dugwiki's reasoning. There can be value in eponymous categories under certain circumstances, but generally only for exceptionally notable people, which Huell Howser isn't. Bearcat 23:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Seminaries and theological colleges in the United States. Mairi 22:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States seminaries to Category:Seminaries and theological colleges in the United States

Rename, adding "theological college" as in the parent Category:Seminaries and theological colleges and to make the word order comply with the standard order of buildings and educational institutions. Greg Grahame 01:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Lesnail 21:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Osomec 15:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Seminaries and theological colleges in Australia. Daniel.Bryant 10:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian seminaries and theological colleges to Category:Seminaries and theological colleges in Australia

Rename, per the convention for man-made objects and buildings. Greg Grahame 01:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Lesnail 21:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Osomec 15:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 8

Category:Wonders of the World

Category:Boxing terms

Category:Housing cooperatives in Madison, Wisconsin

Category:American constitutionalists

Category:Avifauna of Canada

Convention venues

Category:People without hands

Category:Eden

Category:Fox News Channel personalities

Category:Kids' Choice Awards winners

Category:Detroit Music Award winners

Category:Black lawyers

American people by ethnic or national origin

Category:Heterosexual people

Category:Articles with family tree

Category:Karlspreis laureates

Category:Murdered religious people

Category:Art Exhibitions

Category:Flextech

Category:Honorary Citizens of the United States

Category:LGBT people

Category:Bisexual people[edit]

Category:Ex-ex-gay people[edit]

Category:Christian LGBT people[edit]

Category:LGBT Jews[edit]

Category:LGBT Muslims[edit]

Category:People by religion

Category:People by gender

Category:People by race or ethnicity

Category:Brennaman family

Category:Canadian Canadian football players

Category:American Canadian football players

Category:Mount Holyoke College alumnae

Category:Barnard College alumnae

Category:Bands whose names are acronyms

Category:Surreal films

Category:Historical people of the Caribbean

Category:Theological colleges and seminaries in England

Category:Asian seminaries

Category:European seminaries

Category:Canadian seminaries

Category:Huell Howser

Category:United States seminaries

Category:Australian seminaries and theological colleges