Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 24



Category:Past science fiction conventions

 * 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 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 debate was upmerge to Category:Science fiction conventions  --Kbdank71 14:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Past science fiction conventions to Category:Defunct science fiction conventions
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Rename to Category:Discontinued science fiction conventions - another small step to reduce use of "defunct" where possible. Johnbod 20:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Discontinued science fiction conventions - The word "past" is not really useful, as it does not convey enough information. "Discontinued" accurately applies here.  (I would not support changing "defunct" to "discontinued" everywhere, but "discontinued" does work well for things in series, such as annual events.)  Dr. Submillimeter 21:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Two options: 1) Keep as is. Since many, if not most, science fiction conventions are one-off events scheduled for a set period of time, neither "defunct" or "discontinued" makes any sense. 2) Merge into, for exactly the same reason. Grutness...wha?  04:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to "discontinued" - Most science fiction conventions are annual events, Grutness. The prominent exception is the annual Worldcon, where each instance is unique. Discontinued conventions would include these past Worldcons, but also such now-extinct events as the former X-Con in Milwaukee (lasted almost twenty years). The intention of the category is to separate ongoing conventions from those which are of historical interest only. -- Orange Mike 12:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Many are annual - but most are not. Although "pulling rank" is frowned on here, believe me, as former president of the New Zealand National Association for Science Fiction, concomm member of five conventions and fan guest of honour of one, I have a little bit of an idea what I'm talking about. And even if 99% of conventions were annual events, that would still leave 1% for which the term "discontinued" would be highly inappropriate. Grutness...wha?  02:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Things are different in the States, Jim; but we're all working towards the same goals. Do we agree that we need a term that tags "one-off cons that already happened" as opposed to "annual cons no longer ongoing"? -- Orange Mike 03:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC) (member of a dozen concomms or more; Fan GoH at two so far)
 * Rename to Category:Discontinued science fiction conventions. Past would include conventions that continue since they have had events held in the past. Shsilver 16:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Upmerge. Unless someone depopulated the cat, there are only 2 articles that fit this description. This category tree isn't saturated to the point that would necessitate splitting up into subcats. Seems like overcategorizing, and maybe a trivial intersection in that most of the subcats are split based on genre or region, and this category would hypothetically cross both distinctions.-Andrew c 17:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Upmerge into category:science fiction conventions. Doesn't need that level of living/dead status.--Mike Selinker 01:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Upmerge. Clearly 'defunct' or 'discontinued' are not valid to describe singular events.  If we really need this category, then it might be better to rename to something like Category:Science fiction conventions no longer operating.  Vegaswikian 02:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Upmerge per Andrew c - unnecessary level of categorization. Bencherlite 02:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - no objection as nom to upmerging. Otto4711 03:58, 30 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Historical scientific instruments

 * 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 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 debate was no consensus, besides, Category:Scientific equipment already exists  --Kbdank71 13:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Historical scientific instruments to Category:Scientific instruments
 * Nominator's rationale:

Keep Whilst the new category should no doubt be set up, I don't see much point in a large category mixing the latest electronic kit with the astrolabe. The test is a simple one: are they still being manufactured for use by professional scientists? Obviously the telescopes straddle both categories, & may need splitting. Johnbod 16:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Category:Scientific instruments should be created, but the current category should be renamed obsolete scientific instruments, and only contain instruments no longer used in scientific inquiry. 70.55.200.47 03:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The current category's contents would need to be edited. For example, Category:Telescopes is in here, even though telescopes are still in use in science.  Also, it may be difficult to identify what could be considered as "obsolete".  For example, equipment no longer used for research may still be used for educational purposes.  (See astronomical clock, for example.)  Moreover, many research groups still use old equipment because it still works, even though it may be considered "obsolete". Dr. Submillimeter 09:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I think there is a validity in grouping the older, historical instruments together, but I admit that there is ambiguity in defining what would be categorized. Where would something as simple as a ruler go? As for the new category, we have Category:Scientific equipment already. I cannot support renaming this category because I feel it would create redundancy with the existing equipment tree. I would like to somehow keep the historical instruments together, but the cat and subcats would need cleanup, and some sort of criteria set ("Mathematical tools" doesn't seem to fit at all, while "Mechanical calculators" does. "Telescopes" contains both old and new telescopes and would require a major clean up because there are 191 article and more subcats. as it stands, that cat doesn't fit directly into he historical tree. as for "Astronomical instruments" a lot of these instruments fit the bill, but there are a few articles that seem misplaced from a historical perspective).-Andrew c 17:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I did not realize that Category:Scientific equipment existed, so maybe that category should be used instead. In terms of grouping these things, one suggestion that I read from another person was to divide the scientific instruments by century.  However, I do not know how practical that would be in practice for some things, such as mechanical calculators.  Dr. Submillimeter 18:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I would link up the two trees, for example by making Category:Astronomical instruments a sub-cat of the new-found Category:Scientific equipment, and leave it. Dividing by centuries seems unhelpful to me. Johnbod 18:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Astronomical instruments is an odd category. Most of the articles would fit under Category:Measuring instruments except for the two articles dealing with modern inventions Radio telescope and Astronomical interferometer, which could arguably be removed from Astronomical, and Orrery and Tellurion which aren't so much measuring instruments as models. I could see "Historical scientific instruments" fitting at Category:Scientific equipment along side "measuring instruments" and "laboratory equipment", but that would assume the category was kept. Are there any ideas on how to objectively classify if something is "historical"?-Andrew c 18:12, 27 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Assyrians

 * 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 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 debate was rename. Conscious 14:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Assyrians to Category:Assyrian people
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Rename per nom This (mostly modern and mostly people) and Category:Assyria (mostly ancient) do indeed need clear-up. I would favour a clear division between ancient and modern, which following Eygptian, Roman, etc precendent should be by putting all ancient material into "Ancient Assyria/n" categories.   Johnbod 17:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom I would also favor a split per Johnbod. Carlossuarez46 19:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom As an Assyrian, I think this is a good idea. EliasAlucard|Talk 09:20 27 Jun, 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Science fiction fans

 * 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 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 debate was no consensus. the wub "?!"  10:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * science fiction fans


 * Previous nomination discussion here
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Oppose Category definition and talk page make clear that this is well-defined, limited and is not intended to be a mere characterization by opinion, interest or hobby.  The category covers only and specifically those who have made a substantial contribution to the hobby, which depends on amateurs to organize conventions (even Worldcons), and where amateurs may significantly influence literature and film (vide Peter Jackson's comments about fan participation in the Lord of the Rings film). The category requires periodic pruning, and this may well be overdue.  If someone can come up with a better and more obviously restrictive title, I would agree, but I haven't been able to think of one. (The closest thing I can think of is SMOF, but that would be opaque to outsiders.)  Robert A.West (Talk) 16:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - People should not be categorized by hobby, as it does not convey why the individuals are notable. Moreover, given the comments by Robert A.West, it seems that inclusion in this category is subjective.  Such subjective categories are not practical for categorization in the long term, as the category contents will be highly unstable.  Dr. Submillimeter 17:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I recall several CfD's for notable people who supported X football club. As Otto says, it's a non-defining characteristic.  They're not notable for being sci-fi fans, or fans of football/cricket/, they're notable for whatever it is they do in the public eye (in the main). Lugnuts 17:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Some people are notable in the public eye simply for being science fiction fans. Peruse the cat and you will find examples. Major Trekkie fan organizers, fanzine editors, and others come to mind.-- Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 11:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep while Dr. Submillimeter states "it does not convey why the individuals are notable," and Lugnuts says "They're not notable for being sci-fi fans," but in some/many cases the person's notability is directly tied to their activities in an organized fandom which dates back more than 70 years.  An example of this woiuld be James D. Nicoll. The definition included on the page makes it clear that the people for whom the category has been created are actively creating things (conventions, fanzines, etc.) which are public events/works.Shsilver 03:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article on James D. Nicoll indicates that he is much more than a fan. He also owns a role-playing game store, and he has worked as a science fiction critic.  Dr. Submillimeter 09:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: All under the umbrella of being a fan. He isn't hired by the production company to promote their work; he does so simply because he is a notable fan.-- Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 11:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - This person still makes money from science-fiction related activities. He is, after all, the owner of a store that sells role playing materials.  He is more than just a fan.  Dr. Submillimeter 12:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - the store (long closed) is trivial in the notability of James Nicoll. He could just as well have been working as a hospital clerk or property assessor for the past decades. -- Orange Mike 12:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, but I strongly suggest renaming. Category:Prominent members of science fiction fandom is cumbersome, but would make the content of the category more specific and useful. -Sean Curtin 06:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - "Prominent" is a subjective term that is open to interpretation. It sould not be used for category names.  (Also, see Overcategorization.)  Dr. Submillimeter 09:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is categorisation by hobby, and Robert A.West has confirmed that it is systematically misused. Mowsbury 11:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was the first one to nominate this for deletion, some time ago, but after paramaters were added and the necessity of the category was explained, I understood it. The necessity for this is that, in the category Category:Science fiction fandom there needs to be a subcat for the people (called "fans"), just as there is one for fanzines, movies, music, etc... In the realm of science fiction, there are persons of substantial notability, who merit inclusion in Wikipedia, who are famous for nothing more than being, say, a Trekkie. This category is not for persons who own the Star Wars DVDs, and they should not be added.  Yes, this category is sometimes misused, which is NOT a reason to delete it.  Many categories, especially ones related to self-identification (ie - Catholics, Animal rights advocates) are by their nature abused, because Wikipedians want to add themselves, or their favorite celebrity that is just marginally associated with the cause, to the category. This does not detract from the validity of the category, or its compliance with specific Wikipedia parameters, and thus it should not be deleted.-- Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 11:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - People are badly misinterpreting Richard West's comments. If you read the articles on science fiction fandom, you will see that this is a stable, long-term subculture whose members have made various substantial contributions in many areas, not all of them literary. For more than a few, their membership in science fiction fandom is what gave them their start (Ray Bradbury is a fine example). There is an ongoing discourse going on here; and being a part of science fiction fandom is relevant to the life history of a Roger Ebert or a Dave Van Ronk, just as being a Quaker was relevant to the life of a Friend Richardson or a James A. Michener. FIAWOL! -- Orange Mike 12:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Being a Quaker (or a member of any other religion) is empirically defined, as people have to participate in the religion, including possibly being baptized or inducted, attending religious services, and following the rules of the religion. Being a science fiction fan, however, is not clearly defined.  Science fiction fans do not register with any organization, nor do they need to follow set rules.  Dr. Submillimeter 15:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are a boatload of categories that don't have a national reigstry or orthodox tenent, but that can be clearly defined just as well, as is the case here. For example, Wikipedian programmers. Heck, even the language cats (User:English-4).
 * Delete per nom, and as categorization of people by opinion. Do we also get Category:People who are not fans of science fiction? Carlossuarez46 19:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. We don't have any not categories, so that argument is barely valid.-- Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 21:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Let me distinguish from, which would be what the nominator describes as categorization by opinion, incidental to the subject. SF fandom is as clearly defined as, say, ; in both cases, there's a fringe of "weekend golfers" or "people who just read the stuff", who shouldn't be in the cat - and aren't. Fen run science fiction conventions; attend them regularly and prominently; publish fanzines; have gotten awards for fanac.... These people have; in several cases, it's their reason for notability. (Incidentally, opinion, even the opinion that SF is worth reading, is not the test for inclusion here.)Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, per the comments on how this should be being used. If it's being used on people who're not actually notable for their SF fandom, then tighten up the scoping statement in the first instance, and consider renaming in the second.  And clean up the rogue usages, obviously.  (I'm not wild about the renaming option, since it's in clear danger of "protesting too much", per the usual issues with "notable" or "people well-known as" categories.)  Alai 00:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, given that quite a few individuals' notability is based partly or wholly on activities in science fiction conventions, zines, awards, etc. Agreed that the scope could be tightened, but renaming is not necessary. Kestenbaum 16:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, on second thought, taking a look at the scope as it currently stands, it looks pretty reasonable (and tight) to me. Possibly the inclusion of some individuals should be re-examined based on the scope already in place. Kestenbaum 16:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, there are many examples of individuals whose notability is primarily based on being an SF fan (eg. Forrest J Ackerman, Bjo Trimble, David Langford, Sam Moskovitz). In addition there are many notable individuals who are/were also SF fans as a defining characteristic (many SF writers for instance). That the category needs tidying, (particularly of notable people who just happen to be SF fans, but not notably so), isn't a justification to delete. We should also make the category more consistent with Science fiction fandom article. VJDocherty 22:29, 27 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American Iraq War killed in action

 * 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 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 debate was rename all. the wub "?!"  10:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:American Iraq War killed in action to Category:American military personnel killed in the Iraq War
 * Propose renaming Category:American War of 1812 killed in action to Category:American military personnel killed in the War of 1812
 * Propose renaming Category:American Civil War killed in action to Category:American military personnel killed in the American Civil War
 * Propose renaming Category:American Indian Wars killed in action to Category:American military personnel killed in the American Indian Wars
 * Propose renaming Category:American Korean War killed in action to Category:American military personnel killed in the Korean War
 * Propose renaming Category:American Mexican-American War killed in action to Category:American military personnel killed in the Mexican-American War
 * Propose renaming Category:American Vietnam War killed in action to Category:American military personnel killed in the Vietnam War
 * Propose renaming Category:American World War I killed in action to Category:American military personnel killed in World War I
 * Propose renaming Category:American World War II killed in action to Category:American military personnel killed in World War II
 * Nominator's rationale: The current name makes no sense (at least to me) when reading it on it's own. What does it refer to without looking at the articles within the cat?  Soliders?  Journalists?  Tourists?!  It does make some kind of sense when I go up a level to it's parent cat Category:American military personnel killed in action, and if the result of this CFR is rename, then I'll nominate the other 8 subcats of that cat.  Hopefully I've made some sense here...!  Lugnuts 14:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment since all the sub-cats of Category:American military personnel killed in action use this style, a group nomination would have been better, but a weakish Rename per nom for this and the others. Tourists and jounalists are not "killed in action", and the new name is very long. Johnbod 17:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename - The current name uses poor English. The suggested name is better.  I agree that a mass nomination to rename all subcategories of Category:American military personnel killed in action is needed.  Dr. Submillimeter 17:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Help - how do I nominate them all? Is it easy to them all together, or one at a time? Thanks! Lugnuts 17:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that didn't work as I hoped it would! I've read through the WP:CFD and can't seem to make multiple CFD/CFR to work. Lugnuts 18:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just add the other category names to this discussion manually. Make sure that the categories themselves are tagged. Dr. Submillimeter 19:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks Doc! All listed, hopefully OK now. Lugnuts 12:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom; better wording. Carlossuarez46 19:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Rename, especially given that not all war deaths are "in action". In most wars, many more troops died of disease or infections than were killed on the field of battle.  The current wording implies an invidious distinction between those deaths, as if someone who was blown up by a shell and dies instantly is honorable and worthy of categorization, whereas a wounded soldier who dies of infection a week later is not. Kestenbaum 16:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. - Crockspot 12:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nominations, more accurate name. Carom 01:56, 28 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Gallantry Medals

 * 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 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 debate was delete. Conscious 14:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * gallantry medals


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Keep, seems to have a useful purpose. Xn4 00:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * But the thing is, it doesn't. Firstly there is no consensus as to exactly what a 'Gallantry Medal' is.  Some (like New Zealand with their New Zealand bravery awards and New Zealand gallantry awards) hold them to be military in nature, others consider the term to encompass all medals awarded for heroic conduct.  As far as this category goes, who knows what the definition is?  Secondly, the categorisation system already has categories for both Category:Civil decorations and Category:Military decorations.  If you take a look in these categories, you will find that a comprehensive system of sub-categorisation by country exists (eg Category:Military awards and decorations of the United Kingdom).  All this category does is (if exploited to its fullest extent) lump together all awards, civil + military, from all countries into one single ridiculously large category.


 *  X damr  talk 00:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom Johnbod 02:42, 27 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Military cross decorations

 * 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 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 debate was delete. Conscious 14:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * military cross decorations


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Delete per nom. Xn4 00:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Johnbod 02:42, 27 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Doctors actors

 * 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 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 debate was merge to Category:Soap opera actors. Conscious 14:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * doctors actors


 * Nominator's rationale:

Carlossuarez46 19:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Category:Soap opera actors, this is Performers by performance. No objection to a list article. -- Prove It (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom & ProveIt
 * Merge per ProveIt. When I first read the category, I became confused because I was unaware that "Doctors" was a proper noun referring to a Soap opera. I thought, is this category about doctors who are actors, or actors who portrayed doctors (actors of doctors). Anyway, this category shouldn't exist per the precedent mention in the nom.-Andrew c 19:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per ProveIt. Doczilla 07:41, 26 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Football League players (current)

 * 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 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 debate was merge to Category:The Football League players. Conscious 14:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * the football league players (current)
 * Merge into Category:The Football League players, current / former categories suffer from upkeep issues. -- Prove It (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge both to Category:Football League players. Mowsbury 11:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge both to Category:Football League players per usual style. Alex Middleton 21:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There are only TWO of them? Plus "current" categories are being mown down like flies, and I have beaten Dr S to this one. Johnbod 02:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom because the article is currently at The Football League. However perhaps it should be moved to Football League, in which case the category name should be changed. Piccadilly 17:52, 28 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Czechoslovakian lugers

 * 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 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 debate was rename. Conscious 14:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * czechoslovakian lugers
 * Rename to Category:Czechoslovak lugers, convention of Category:Czechoslovak sportspeople. -- Prove It (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename this lug-related cat! Ahhh, wait it's looo-jurs and not lug-ers.  Dang. Lugnuts 13:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom Johnbod 02:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom Cloachland 20:36, 29 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:306ent albums

 * 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 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 debate was rename. Conscious 14:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:306ent albums to Category:306 Entertainment albums
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Rename If the articles is kept, this category should also be kept as part of a wider system, ie albums by label. Piccadilly 17:53, 28 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:LGBT directors

 * 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 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 debate was keep. the wub "?!"  13:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * lgbt directors


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Strong keep - the notion that LGBT directors should only be categorized as such if enough of their films are LGBT-oriented is arbitrary and untenable. Directors like James Whale, Dorothy Arzner and George Cukor had little or no opportunity to make explicitly LGBT-related films, but the notion that their sexuality had an impact on their films and their careers regardless is the topic of any number of independent reliable sources. The idea that directors should have to pass some sort of minimum queer content test before they can be included is unreasonable and insulting. The standard set forth at WP:OC is that an encyclopedic lead article can be written on the topic and there is no question that a lead article on the topic of LGBT directors can be written.Otto4711 01:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And, having looked more closely at the articles in the category, the names that I recognize off the top of my head would almost all pass the queer content test anyway, so deleting and rebuilding the category on that basis would be a complete waste of time and effort. Otto4711 01:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No encyclopedic lead article can be written on directors who are just gay. On director's who's LGBTness affected their career...of course. But how do we know that is true for all these directors? We don't. Bulldog123 01:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with you, but since the vast majority of the directors in the category pass your queer content test it doesn't really matter. Otto4711 02:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not queer-content, it's queer-effect. Bulldog123 05:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Otto. If there is someone in particular who is in this category and you feel they should be removed, take it up on that article's talk page, but I see no reason to delete an otherwise utilitarian category. Film is a notable part of queer culture, and this categorization seems entirely valid. -Andrew c 03:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the nomination rationale. I addressed your "film is a notable part of queer culture" statement. Bulldog123 05:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep One need only look at the Frameline Film festival (I believe over 150 films this year) to see that LGBT directors are part of the film industry and making an impact on the industry and culture. Benjiboi 06:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the nomination rationale. Bulldog123 05:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems to me the category should instead add two subcategories; LGBT directors who identify as LGBT directors and directors who produce LGBT films. That might cause more confusion but I can see that people would reference both when touching on either subject. Benjiboi 06:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok maybe. But it's not just about LGBT-oriented films, though I made it seem like that with my example. It's more about what relevance does this category have to pass WP:OCAT if there is no reason to suggest all these people have LGBT issues that affect their careers. Some certainly do; but I strongly feel that many do not. I just don't think every one of these filmmakers would like to be lumped into the same category as people who have no true career-based relationship to them. It doesn't end up passing WP:OCAT. Bulldog123 08:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Simply because some articles would be wrongly added to a category doesn't mena the entire category is flawed. Benjiboi 20:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Otto's eloquent statement. DuncanHill 10:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete POV pushing illegitimate intersection. Wikipedia's left-liberal bias is painfully obvious and needs to be reversed. Haddiscoe 12:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly what POV is being pushed by noting the existence of LGBT directors? How is that an indication of WP:BIAS? Be specific. Otto4711 14:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, until I can figure out how stating the fact that a director is LGBT is showing any sort of bias. --fuzzy510 19:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Because no such categories exist for heterosexuals. Piccadilly 17:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (but restrict) Directing is a career where the director's sexual orientation can significantly impact their works. Therefore the category is not an entirely random intersection between career and sexual orientation.  That being said, the category's contents should be properly restricted to articles which specifically talk about the director being gay, particularly those where it talks about how being gay impacted their work.  Articles about directors who happen to be gay but which do not explicitly and verifiably mention that fact should not be included since, for them, the intersection is either not verifiable or entirely trivial (or both). Dugwiki 16:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Otto. Carlossuarez46 19:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above-- Sef rin gle Talk 22:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Politically correct irrelevant intersection. How about Category:Film directors who prefer blondes? I should think that attribute has had as much influence on the content of films, perhaps more. Piccadilly 17:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, equating sexual orientation to preferring a particular hair color is moronic. Otto4711 01:52, 30 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.