Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 25 August 27 >

August 26

[edit]

Category:Mangaka to Category:Manga artists

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Manga ka only has 1 article in it, Manga artists is the commonly used one, even the mangaka article is under it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 20:54, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Cambridge Pubs to Category:Public houses in Cambridge, England

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't find this category until after I'd already created the new one. It had only one member. The new name is more consistent and less ambiguous. Bovlb 14:49:04, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Gay icons

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 12:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category is pov and largely irrelevant to many of the people who are placed in it. Calsicol 14:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Highly contentious and superfluous category which is inherently POV. Hall Monitor 16:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. How the hell did this get renominated so fast? Might as well stop, becuase there will never be a consensus to get rid of it. I've learned that people like to ignore rules like POV when discussing categories they like. --Kbdank71 16:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah? And people tend to ignore rules like POV when discussing categories they hate. And people also tend to be blind to their own POV spots, which makes the whole POV issue a big festering can of worms. So what's your point? (Here's a hint: "all gay-related categories should be deleted" is not a neutral point of view. For that matter, neither is "I didn't get the answer I wanted, so I'm just going to renominate it immediately". But I don't suppose I'll ever see you snark nearly as much at those POVs as you do at the supposed POV of those of us who regularly defend gay-related categories, will I?) Bearcat 20:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please do not make assumptions other than good WP:FAITH. Speaking personally, I have nothing against gay-related articles or categories, but this particular category is, as I said, inherently POV and frequently attracts original research. Hall Monitor 20:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Woah there, slow down. My point is exactly that: people let their personal feelings and emotions get in the way too much around here, yes, for ones they hate as well as ones they like. As for "snarking", did you miss my question How the hell did this get renominated so fast? --Kbdank71 20:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was referring to the side comment I've learned that people like to ignore rules like POV when discussing categories they like, which communicated low expectations of how people might conduct themselves in this discussion rather than actually addressing the matter at hand. Bearcat 22:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. In my judgment there is a recognisable cultural phenomenon of gay iconography. I know of other CFD debates which have been dominated by people picking on individual entries in the category as a way of asserting the category's arbitrariness, but really this isn't the point: the thing to do is to remove the dubious articles from the category, or challenge others to provide a justification for their being in it. I like the idea suggested on the last CFD vote on this (less than a month ago) of not listing any article unless it justifies their inclusion as a 'gay icon' in the article text. David | Talk 20:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I really don't see how this is "inherently POV". Sure, you could add to it in a way that is POV, but that doesn't mean it will be in all cases. And, if it was already kept from a CFD, I don't feel renominating it is proper style. But, I'll just assume Calsicol was not aware of the previous CFD. --Phroziac (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not so much POV as that who constitutes a gay icon is variable, based on location (for example, Carole Pope and Mitsou would be classed as gay icons in Canada, but aren't really all that well-known in the United States), age (Judy Garland is largely meaningless to men of my generation, while Madonna doesn't necessarily mean that much to the generations for whom Judy Garland was an icon), and other factors. But it's also obvious that some of the additions to this category are either outlandish (Mr. Clean?!) or based on having one or two hits in gay dance clubs ten years ago but being otherwise pretty insignificant figures. (Nikki French?) And exactly how can any credible attempt at a "Gay icons" category not include the Scissor Sisters? I can't say I really care much whether this particular category stays or goes, but then I'm a freak whose tastes can hardly be taken as normative for a gay man of my generation. I'm more concerned about the veiled homophobia that often shows up in gay-related CfD votes than about this category itself. Keep, if only on the grounds that it's already survived more than one kick at this particular can. Bearcat 22:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I don't think this is a valid nomination at all - there just was a vote on exactly this cat, and you know, re-nominating because one did not get what one wanted is not the done style in WP. So close this bad faith nomination.
    The old was closed on 5th of August, with no consensus - keep. [1] -- AlexR 22:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the category itself is NPOV, the articles included could be. This is NOT a Cfd problem, if the biography article does not plainly list that they support the gay community then it should be removed. ∞Who?¿? 01:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I think the category is NPOV, though the definition written on the page itself may be POV. The problem may come where not every page in this category state (as a fact) that the person has voiced support for the gay-lesbian community. We may also wish to redefine the category itself to not say Gay icons are people, or groups of people, who have a strong appeal to gay people which is POV. One option would be to say that gay icons are people, or groups of people, who have portrayed gay characters, or have voiced positive support towards the gay community or some other paraphrasing of it. Having portrayed gay characters or having voice positive support are facts that can be supported by IMDb entries, or news/magazine articles. --Hcblue 19:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that having portrayed gay characters or having voiced positive support for the LGBT community aren't, in and of themselves, the definition of being a gay icon. They may contribute to a person becoming one, but they don't define the condition. In fact, Donna Summer was a gay icon despite the fact that her few comments on the subject were generally anti-gay. Bearcat 22:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Summer's greatest years of popularity with the gay community were when she was seen as being supportive of gays. When she allegedly made anti-gay remarks, Summer's popularity in the gay community dried up, and she has repeatedly tried to make amends. There is a great deal of dispute about whether she even made any remarks. But she was not a gay icon in spite of her beliefs - she was not even considered to have those beliefs until the early 80's or so when she became a born-again Christian. --JamesB3 08:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I think I've said this before, but this category is not "inherently POV". We haven't listed every single person who has ever said a good word about gays. There are many personalities who are known as being popular with the gay community, they are known for working with gay-related charities or acknowledging their gay fan base. Cher , Madonna, Bette Midler, etc. are known for this. This is also the case with Barbara Streisand, who was removed yesterday until I put her back on. Bearcat criticized the category for including Mr. Clean, but most categories can have sometimes silly, erroneous entries. I deleted that weeks ago, as I deleted others like Barbara Parkins and Meg Ryan. If there are bad entries then we can remove them, or ask for elaboration - we don't have to delete the entire category. I get the feeling that we are going to be having this same argument two or three weeks from now. And I would also, just as an aside, point out that playing a gay character doesn't = gay icon. Some actors have whined that playing gay ruined their careers, kissing someone of the same gender is like kissing a dog, etc. They aren't that popular with a lot of gays, needless to say. --JamesB3 08:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem that I have come across is that less than 2% of the articles categorised in Category:Gay icons attempt to explain why they are placed in that category. What are the qualifications for one to be categorised as a gay icon? Hall Monitor 20:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The qualifications are listed on the main page. A gay icon is some form of entertainment figure who is very popular or influential within the gay community. I can go to each individual page and try to explain it, if you want me to do so, but I wonder if those comments would get deleted for being irrelevant to the person's overall bio. --JamesB3 00:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • And how does one define "very popular within the gay community"? If explaining it in the article is irrelevant to the person's bio then I need to question if the being categorised as such is also irrelevant. Hall Monitor 16:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would define "very popular" as having a sustained amount of popularity in the gay community. For instance, Judy Garland or Madonna were/are popular for several decades, with their music and performances regularly shown, lampooned, etc. whereas something like that 80's group Dee-Lite only had one hit and a more limited lifespan within the gay community. I don't think the category is irrelevant just because those who write bios may think the information is irrelevant. It depends on whether or not the bio person feels too many side details are extraneous. --JamesB3 23:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just because I'm sick of categories ending up on CfD every other day. -Seth Mahoney 22:35, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hyacinth 20:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and listify. Only important, central traits of a topic should be made as categories. Being a gay icon isn't such. Concetrate on the list of gay icons instead. -Hapsiainen 13:34, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, inherently based on generalisations. McPhail 20:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No definition of term, means no purpose in category. --rob 05:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, same reasoning as last time; the category isn't inherently POV. --Mairi 07:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not at all clear on why this is POV, NPOV IMHO. Axon (talk|contribs) 09:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is still original research. siafu 23:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Mathematician Wikipedians

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 12:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (my vote is above). There's a difference between Wiki cats and projects such as Babel. The math equivalent of Babel would be something like, Math-1 able to handle a formula, Math-2 work with math in every day applications, etc. This gives you a good idea of the user's (self-appraised) ability when it comes to editing. As was mentioned on the Project Math talk pages, so few math-able people actually work as mathematicians that it is somewhat pointless to have a cat like this -- under a Babel like system they would simply be the few "native speaker" of math. --stochata 10:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the term "matematician" seems to be used loosly here the instructions say that people with a degree or just interest in math topics should add themselves, not just people working as mathematicians professionaly. If you think the name is misleading (being a subcat of Wikipedians by profession is probably also somewhat misleading) we can always nominate it for renaming later, but let's get rid of this duplicate first. --Sherool 18:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Redundant images

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 12:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category is meant as a temporary holding area, meant for images in the process of being orphaned so they can be deleted. But no one seems to have added anything to it since July. I nominated the two neglected images I found there for speedy deletion, and I assume the entire category can now just be deleted. -- Beland 04:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_26&oldid=1110479030"