Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 9
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
August 9
[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 14:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This category was just created, but the parent category consists almost entirely of Soviet or Russian submarine accidents (Category:submarine accidents), so I think this is overcategorization and redunant. 132.205.95.43 02:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I was the one who created the category. I was actually moving the Sov/Rus subs over to the category while at work and didn't get the chance to finish it; I was going to do that today. The primary reason I created it is because I thought there were enough Sov/Rus incidents to earn itself a subcategory. With the bulk of the accidents in there being Soviet or Russian vessels, it detracts much from the other ones and makes it harder to present the other ones. If you think it's overcategorization, that's your call; I was simply trying to make it easier to organize them all. Perhaps a list might serve better.--Mitsukai 04:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment is "Soviet/Russian" really the preferred term? siafu 05:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably not. Defer to Wikipedia:Category titles, then make it either "Russian submarine accidents" or "Submarine accidents of the USSR". Or thereabouts. Radiant_>|< 08:38, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep A good example of detailed categorisation. This category can be placed in both a subject category and a national category and won't hang around unsubcategorised in either of them. The fact that the articles in the head category mostly belong here is a reason for highlghting those that don't as well as a reason for separating these out. The Russian/Soviet thing is tricky, but that's a separate issue, which should be handle the way it usually is, if there is any such convention. Osomec 16:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but rename (via WP:Category titles). Aecis 14:44, 11 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.
- 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 13:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This category is orphaned and vague by name. Delete or rename to something more suitable. Hall Monitor 23:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: bellow is similar vote on "Hyphenated Italians". It should be somehow coordinated. Pavel Vozenilek 23:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The CfD vote below is actually a rename of Category:Hyphenated Italians of which this would, theoretically, be a subcat. The decision there is not relevant to the subcats are not involved. siafu 05:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It seems from the members of this category that the real meaning of this cat is "Irish-Italian-Americans", which I think is overcategorization. If Steve Buscemi or Robert DeNiro are already in Category:Italian-Americans and Category:Irish-Americans then there's no need to beat a user over the head with the fact that they are then Irish-Italian-Americans. siafu 05:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unless someone wants to create Category:Irish-Italian-American-Actors? --Kbdank71 15:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Should there be a category for Italian-Irish people, that is, people in Ireland with Italian ancestry? — Instantnood 19:44, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that be Italians of Irish ancestry? Aecis 14:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because people of Irish and Italian ancestry are an ethnic group of their own. 69.216.240.155 20:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ethnic subcats. They give no encyclopedic information. -Splash 21:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. None of these people live in Italy. Lapsed Pacifist 07:36, 11 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.
- 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 13:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This category has the same scope as the pre-existing Category:Native Americans. Kurieeto 19:18, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. No argument. siafu 05:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the one article to Category:Native Americans and delete. -Splash 21:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as per above. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:08, 10 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.
- 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 13:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecesssary category. See Category:Native Americans for a break-down of Native Americans by occupation. Kurieeto 19:18, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. No argument. siafu 05:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Rmhermen 17:57, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 (keep) --Kbdank71 13:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to near-empty parent cat Category:Wikipedia collaborations, since several collabs in this cat are not weekly (but rather biweekly or monthly). Radiant_>|< 17:44, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
- I think it's good to distinguish them from the general nature of WP. Maybe "Periodic collaborations"?Maurreen (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per Maurreen (or use the words regular or scheduled instead. That's a good idea. I like it so much that I must vote for it. Vote for it now. siafu 05:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objection to the renaming, but note that Category:Wikipedia collaborations is almost empty - which raises the question if we have any collaborations that aren't periodic. Radiant_>|< 08:38, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- The Welcoming Committee, the Cleanup Task Force, the Wikiprojects, etc. Maurreen (talk) 18:35, 10 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.
- 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 13:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty, tagged for deletion by User:Uber nemo but not listed here. --Kbdank71 15:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete empty. The idea has some merit, but I'm not sure we have enough galaxy articles to justify such a category subdivision at this point even if we tried populating it. I'd suggest anyone interested start with something like a List of galaxies by constellation first. --Sherool 23:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT see previous deleition request Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Galaxies_by_constellation 132.205.95.43 01:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT if this is deleted, I think Category:Stars by constellation heirarchy should also go. 132.205.95.43 01:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT: The idea of this category definitely has merit, but it's empty, so clearly it either needs to go or be populated. Has anyone run this past Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects to see whether they have a use for it? Grutness...wha? 01:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I just now left a note on the talk page over there. Hopefully we'll find out. siafu 05:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, sorry I messed up the listing, There are already individual constellation categories where all the galaxies are found in, and they can be accessed via Category:Constellations, to which they are subcategories of. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 15:57, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 (keep) --Kbdank71 13:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for renaming to Category:Frito-Lay brands by User:Ddespie@san.rr.com. --Kbdank71 15:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: I think leaving it as Category:Frito-Lay would be fine. tregoweth 02:51, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose: current name is more useful. -Sean Curtin 03:37, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Support, suggested name is more comprehensive. Radiant_>|< 08:38, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Humph. They're called Walkers over here in the UK. Systemic bias, methinks. -Splash 21:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename The question is will the future of the category contain information about the company, as it stands it is just filled with its products, so the rename would clearly support that. However, if there are articles to place in the current cat, that are not products, then Category:Frito-Lay brands could be created as a sub, granted ATP, that would be over-cat'ing. Especially since the desc text is Articles related to brands of... Clearly a "brands" title should be used. Note: Walkers? Sounds more like a big square cane.. Is there an age req for those things :) ∞Who?¿? 06:27, 14 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.
- 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 (keep) --Kbdank71 13:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for renaming to Category:Shows that feature young versions of cartoon characters by User:Roadrunner3000. --Kbdank71 15:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Renaming would be ok but the suggested name is too long. Radiant_>|< 17:44, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and list or list in Younger versions of cartoon characters. I agree with Radiant that the replacement name is way too much to be useful, but more notable is the fact that this a collection of six articles on a rather obscure topic. siafu 05:16, 10 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.
- 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 13:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty, tagged for deletion by User:Mrsteviec; reason not given. --Kbdank71 15:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Being empty sounds like a reason :) Radiant_>|< 17:44, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I'm assuming that this refers to Bloomsbury, London, though there's no category description either. It could be useful, but I'll leave that to someone more familiar with the area in question to demonstrate. siafu 05:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Bloomsbury is small and it is not an administrative unit. There is an established system for categorising London articles by borough and by theme. This is quite sufficient, and it is really undesirable for people to cut across this system by categorising articles by (often vaguely defined) districts as well. A similar example, category:Covent Garden, has recently been deleted. CalJW 08:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Possibly intended for authors published by Bloomsbury publishing (who include J. K. Rowling? David | Talk
- Interestingly, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc is a stub! Where'd all the Potter maniacs go? -Splash 21:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Can be recreated when it's needed at which time it will acquire a clear meaning. -Splash 21:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've just edited a couple of entries to show that Bloomsbury and Camden can be used together. There is no reason why the historical districts should not be included in Wikipedia. Although Bloomsbury is small, it is associated with many events and places of note. It's not a case of either Camden or Bloomsbury, as these boundaries may overlap modern council boundaries. Covent Garden is a different issue as it is the name of a specific place, not an historical district. --stochata 09:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit -- it appears I am wrong about Covent Garden, having read the article! (Interested parties should also read the article about Bloomsbury) --stochata 10:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- One further note -- the category is only empty because User:Mrsteviec removed it from over 20 articles. This does appear to be somewhat of an edit war, since the entries had previously been changed from Camden to Bloomsbury. --stochata 10:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes this category should be deleted. For the same reasons as the Covent Garden category. The districts in London are not well defined and one mans Soho is another mans Fitzrovia. The London boroughs e.g. Camden have clear boundaries and are already set up for categorising districts. Mrsteviec 11:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But would different levels of categorisation are appropriate in this case? The area is relatively well defined -- just as no-one would in reality dispute the border of Fitzrovia and Soho. I agree that it is not sensible to make it a subcategory of Camden, but Camden is a large area with imposed rather than natural boundaries, making the contents of the category somewhat random. By contrast, Bloomsbury is quite a well-knit community. --stochata 19:19, 11 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.
- 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 12:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty, tagged for deletion by User:Macademe 13 minutes after they created it because of a misspelling. --Kbdank71 15:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy, empty and requested by only editor. Radiant_>|< 17:44, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Sppedy because it is typo. AOP is important topic, though. Pavel Vozenilek 23:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy per Radiant. siafu 05:21, 10 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.
- 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 13:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
m:instruction creep. If you want to find out who is blocked, check Special:Ipblocklist, which is self-updating and far more clear and accurate. Radiant_>|< 08:01, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as it is already handled better. Not a real problem, IMHO. Pavel Vozenilek 23:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. A nice idea in theory, but there is nothing to prevent a blocked user from modifying their own userpage, meaning they could just remove the category anyways. Special:Ipblocklist handles this task much more effectively. Hall Monitor 16:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. But don't just go inventing new speedy deletion rules. -Splash 21:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. This category isn't necessary. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:10, 10 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.
- 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 defer to category titles discussion --Kbdank71 13:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All articles have been moved to Category:Ni-Vanuatu politicians, which is the correct form for "of or pertaining to Vanuatu". —Seselwa 05:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Oppose. Category:Politicians of Vanuatu would be better. -- Darwinek 13:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Defer to Wikipedia:Category titles, but imho this would be a prime candidate for renaming to [[:Category:Politicians of Vanuatu". Radiant_>|< 17:44, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Wiktionary & Dictionary.com both say "Vanuatuan". Never heard "Ni-Vanuatu". --Polynova 03:26, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose In the light of the above, I would like to know the connotations of the term Ni-Vanuatu. It may be controversial. I don't think there is any other nationality for which we use a term so removed from conventional English language forms. Osomec 16:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I-Kiribati, Macanese, Seychellois, Basotho, Motswana, Malagasy, Sahrawi, Sammarinese, Monegasque, Mahoran, Ni-Vanuatu. Almost all of the existing politician categories use the country's adjectival form. People who have never seen this form before are incorrect and are unfamiliar with Vanuatu. I really hate uneducated assertions. —Seselwa 01:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Defer per Radiant!. -Splash 21:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Defer per Radiant. siafu 22:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless, it's not standard to use the non-English term: Category:French politicians instead of "francais", Category:Polish politicians instead of "polska", etc. siafu 05:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Ni-Vanuatu is the English term! The primary language of Vanuatu is Bislama, whose "major lexifier … is English" and which contains "a substantial number of common words of French origin" [1]. —Seselwa 01:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not according to wiktionary and dictionary.com, apparently. While it's interesting that Bislama is lexified by English, it's erroneous to try and use this process in reverse. Ni-x is not a adjectival process in English, so Ni-Vanuatu would have to be a borrowing into English from Bislama, and the evidence presented so far indicates that no such borrowing has occured. siafu 19:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Ni-Vanuatu is the English term! The primary language of Vanuatu is Bislama, whose "major lexifier … is English" and which contains "a substantial number of common words of French origin" [1]. —Seselwa 01:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless, it's not standard to use the non-English term: Category:French politicians instead of "francais", Category:Polish politicians instead of "polska", etc. siafu 05:27, 12 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.
- 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 (keep) --Kbdank71 13:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If there has to be a category like this, I would prefer for it to be something like Category:Gay comic book characters, since all the characters listed are comic book characters and there are some more comic book characters that could be included who wouldnt be classified as a 'superhero'.--DrBat 22:14, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
- What about the Ambiguously Gay Duo? Rename to Category:LGBT superheroes, and create Category:LGBT comics characters for non-superhero entries in this category. -Sean Curtin 03:37, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- What is the benefit of using "LGBT" in place of "Gay"? siafu 05:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "gay" is a colloquialism, and not a professional term. The correct word would be "homosexual" but that term, according to some, excludes lesbians and bisexuals. I am unaware of transsexualism being common as such. Anyway the point is that LGBT is very much a PC term, but I am unable to conceive of a better one. Regardless, delete as trivia. We shouldn't categorize by sexuality. Radiant_>|< 08:38, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- I think it's people claiming that "gay" is arguably male-homosexuals only (which I can agree is becoming more common in modern use, but is a difficult distinction to walk), but that "homosexual" refers to the inclination (in both sexes) and not the sub-culture (which is also true, but changes the meaning - "Gay Britons" vs. "Homosexual Britons", even if women were included in the former as well as the later, would not perfectly overlap - homosexuals who are not part of the gay culture, for instance. Either way, delete. James F. (talk) 09:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "gay" is a colloquialism, and not a professional term. The correct word would be "homosexual" but that term, according to some, excludes lesbians and bisexuals. I am unaware of transsexualism being common as such. Anyway the point is that LGBT is very much a PC term, but I am unable to conceive of a better one. Regardless, delete as trivia. We shouldn't categorize by sexuality. Radiant_>|< 08:38, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- What is the benefit of using "LGBT" in place of "Gay"? siafu 05:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I can think of at least one fantasy character who would probably be appropriate for this category: Vanyel, from the Last Herald-Mage sub-sereis by Mercedes Lackey. Other Lackey characters might possibly fit. I have no opnion on whether the category is worth wuile, but in the Lackey examnple, the character's sexuality is a major part of his motivation and background, not a minor detail. DES (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Superfluous category and the articles in it are overdetailed trivia that don't need more publicity. We certainly shouldn't categorise by sexuality if we are not allowed to categorise by gender, which is far more significant and useful for the vast majority of people. 82.35.34.11 16:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as trivial and superfluous. Hall Monitor 16:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename to Category:Gay comic book characters — OwenBlacker 21:34, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and rename to Category:Gay comic book characters. One person's trivia is another person's PhD thesis. I see nothing counter productive to letting this category exist. There are many categorizations by sex, gender, race and ethnicity when it is appropriate to the subject matter. There is nothing inherently discriminatory about doing so. — Samuel Wantman 21:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and renameto Category: LGBT comic book characters. Arguing isn't gonna change anybody's mind, and I don't have to do it for my vote to count, so there it is. -Seth Mahoney 00:02, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and rename to Category:Gay comic book characters.--DrBat 00:44, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep --horseboy 14:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Either rename to Category:LGBT comic book characters or create four separate categories for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender comic book characters. "Gay comic book characters" cannot include any character who is not a gay man. Bearcat 00:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The term "gay" is also applied to women. siafu 00:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- By non-gay people, yes. However, lesbians themselves explicitly refuse the label "gay"; a community's own refusal to accept a particular label for themselves has to override common usage. See naming conventions: Also, some terms are in common usage but are commonly regarded as offensive to large groups of people (Eskimo and Mormon Church, for example). In those cases use widely known alternatives (Inuit and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). Bearcat 03:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure which lesbians you're talking about, you'll have to specify. I have never encountered this, and neither Terminology of homosexuality nor lesbian make any mention of this. siafu 03:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What is there to specify? Is there some other definition of lesbian besides "women who are attracted to people of their own gender" that I'm not aware of? Bearcat 04:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You have to specify your source to back up the assertion you've made that lesbians explicitly reject the word "gay" to describe themselves. It's not self-evident. siafu 04:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I am a gay man. I know from actual experience in the LGBT community what we do and don't consider acceptable terminology. That is all the source I'm required to provide. Bearcat 04:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What may seem to be common knowledge to you is not the case for others. I also know first hand what terminology is used in the LGBT community, and "gay woman" is common in my experience. But what you and I both personally experienced is POV and not very helpful. Has some group endorsed this statement? Have there been any surveys? Something? Anything? siafu 04:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "Gay woman" is common outside the gay community. It's close to unheard of in LGBT circles today (which isn't the same as thirty years ago, when it was the common term because lesbians hadn't yet reached the point of wanting to be defined as a distinct community.) You may still find some individual women who refer to themselves that way, but they're vastly outnumbered, and if you can find even one organized lesbian group that says it prefers "gay women" to "lesbians", I'll eat my underwear. Bearcat 04:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply stressing your experience again does not substitute for a source. We can argue endlessly about this since my experience does not match yours, but it does not say anything about the LGBT community. For that, your own personal life is no more useful or valid than mine. Is there a group or study or book or anything that supports your statement beyond your individual experience? siafu 04:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have equal claim to putting the same question to you, on pretty much identical grounds. Can you prove that it's more typical for lesbians to accept the label "gay woman" than to reject it? Bearcat 05:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you expecting me to prove a negative? The burden of proof lies with the party making the assertion. If I were to say directly that this non-obvious rejection doesn't happen, the lack of evidence is the only possible evidence I could have. So far, there's plenty of that. I'm asking you to provide a source in good faith; if this is nothing more than your personal, honest to goodness, experience of things, I believe that you are as well acting in good faith, but you have to demonstrate that it's true BEYOND just your own personal experience in order for me to believe that it's true beyond your own personal experience. If you can't, whether it's true or not, we're left only with the sources I mentioned here on wikipedia indicate that "gay" is the preferred term to replace "homosexual". siafu 05:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You can start with the fact that the Wikipedia:LGBT notice board has a consistent (although admittedly not universal; there will always be people who find LGBT too unwieldy or "coded") preference for distinguishing "lesbian" rather than subsuming it into "gay". But I suspect that won't be enough for you, so here:
- Are you expecting me to prove a negative? The burden of proof lies with the party making the assertion. If I were to say directly that this non-obvious rejection doesn't happen, the lack of evidence is the only possible evidence I could have. So far, there's plenty of that. I'm asking you to provide a source in good faith; if this is nothing more than your personal, honest to goodness, experience of things, I believe that you are as well acting in good faith, but you have to demonstrate that it's true BEYOND just your own personal experience in order for me to believe that it's true beyond your own personal experience. If you can't, whether it's true or not, we're left only with the sources I mentioned here on wikipedia indicate that "gay" is the preferred term to replace "homosexual". siafu 05:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have equal claim to putting the same question to you, on pretty much identical grounds. Can you prove that it's more typical for lesbians to accept the label "gay woman" than to reject it? Bearcat 05:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply stressing your experience again does not substitute for a source. We can argue endlessly about this since my experience does not match yours, but it does not say anything about the LGBT community. For that, your own personal life is no more useful or valid than mine. Is there a group or study or book or anything that supports your statement beyond your individual experience? siafu 04:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "Gay woman" is common outside the gay community. It's close to unheard of in LGBT circles today (which isn't the same as thirty years ago, when it was the common term because lesbians hadn't yet reached the point of wanting to be defined as a distinct community.) You may still find some individual women who refer to themselves that way, but they're vastly outnumbered, and if you can find even one organized lesbian group that says it prefers "gay women" to "lesbians", I'll eat my underwear. Bearcat 04:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What may seem to be common knowledge to you is not the case for others. I also know first hand what terminology is used in the LGBT community, and "gay woman" is common in my experience. But what you and I both personally experienced is POV and not very helpful. Has some group endorsed this statement? Have there been any surveys? Something? Anything? siafu 04:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I am a gay man. I know from actual experience in the LGBT community what we do and don't consider acceptable terminology. That is all the source I'm required to provide. Bearcat 04:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You have to specify your source to back up the assertion you've made that lesbians explicitly reject the word "gay" to describe themselves. It's not self-evident. siafu 04:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What is there to specify? Is there some other definition of lesbian besides "women who are attracted to people of their own gender" that I'm not aware of? Bearcat 04:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure which lesbians you're talking about, you'll have to specify. I have never encountered this, and neither Terminology of homosexuality nor lesbian make any mention of this. siafu 03:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- By non-gay people, yes. However, lesbians themselves explicitly refuse the label "gay"; a community's own refusal to accept a particular label for themselves has to override common usage. See naming conventions: Also, some terms are in common usage but are commonly regarded as offensive to large groups of people (Eskimo and Mormon Church, for example). In those cases use widely known alternatives (Inuit and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). Bearcat 03:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigma Research study in which "lesbian" is consistently preferred by over half of same-sex-identified women, to just 17% who prefer "gay woman"
- Equality Network
- University of Waterloo LGBT committee
- Safe Schools Coalition
- gaysmokeout.net
- University of Wisconsin Bias-Free Communication Guide
- Westchester Jewish Community Services
- Concordia University Q2 Ally Network
- Georgian College Student Services
- PFLAG Detroit
- SOSNet Communication Toolkit
- Every one of these notes that both "gay women" and "lesbian" are terms in use, but every one also notes that "lesbian" is the preferred term. I could keep going; a Google search for "lesbian preferred term" brings up 892 hits, while "gay woman preferred term" brings up less than 50; and even those 50 almost all say that "gay woman" is deprecated in favour of lesbian. One single blogger says that "gay woman" is her preferred term. And for what it's worth, the burden of proof is on the claim that diverges from the preponderance of evidence, whether it's the positive or the negative. Bearcat 05:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Next time perhaps it needn't take so long to receive an answer to a question. siafu 06:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: for the record, I count 4 deletes, 1 keep, 3 renames to Category: LGBT comic book characters, and 4 renames to Category:LGBT comic book characters. --Kbdank71 13:09, 16 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.
- 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, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While these individuals share an employer and occupation, this category just seems needlessly specific. Currently has five articles. tregoweth 03:21, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. -Sean Curtin 03:37, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: While I really don't have a vote one way or another on it, I probably should point out that the ADV/Monster Island voice actors are unique in that they tend to remain with the company, as opposed to most voice actors, who tend to move between the other stables in the US anime industry. Not trying to sway the vote one way or another, just hoping this information will be of help in the ultimate decision on it.--Mitsukai 04:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no argument. The retention of this particular voice talent is notable for the relevant articles but does not counter the fact that it is narrow beyond beyond practical utility as a category. siafu 05:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There's potential for creeping category clutter if we allow this sort of thing. The main actors associated with the company can be mentioned in its article. CalJW 08:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. -Splash 21:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify Hollywood no longer has a studio system, and ADV is not even a Hollywood studio 132.205.3.20 18:46, 11 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.