Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 14

: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 14:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Should be Category:Female philosophers, but I should think we are not in the habit of subclassifiying any kind of profession by gender. Delete. Radiantmeta:mergist 14:30, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Agreed with Radiant. Pavel Vozenilek 17:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 23:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Radiant. Postdlf 07:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agreed. Buffyg 09:00, 15 Jun 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 delete --Kbdank71 13:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know all LGBT cats were reinstated, but that discussion did point out that this particular one is rather pointless. It is also empty, and the term 'LGBT' as such is meaningless if applied to the entirely different culture of Ancient Greece. Delete. Radiantmeta:mergist 14:12, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• I agree, DELETE, because bisexual activity was commonplace, and homosexual relationships were considered the very best kind of relationship possible in ancient Greece. This category might include every single ancient Greek with a WikiPedia entry. 132.205.94.190 20:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. For the record, I was the one to unpopulate and delete, then undelete and repopulate, these cats, and I didn't touch this one, so... James F. (talk) 23:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I thought there wasn't any support for restoring this one, just the LGBT occupation subcats. Postdlf 07:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Imposing current identity category that far back utterly ahistorical. Buffyg 09:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -Seth Mahoney 23:49, Jun 17, 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 delete --Kbdank71 13:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Given that the Three-Letter Acronyms are already covered in such lists as Table of all possible TLAs from EAA to HZZ, and that there are 15767 possible TLAs, this category is ultimately pointless as too unwieldy to be practical. Radiantmeta:mergist 13:40, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Content of this category gives almost no useful info. Agreed with Radiant. Pavel Vozenilek 17:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There is a difference between the two. Please read the "category description" first (that's the text at :Category:TLAs BTW). -- User:Docu
• :::Vote withdrawn to enable deletion. -- User:Docu
• You mean to say that this is a category of pages that disambiguate multiple meanings of a TLA, as opposed to just a single TLA. I understand that it's a difference, but I entirely fail to see its usefulness. Radiantmeta:mergist 07:12, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
• I don't see anything in the "category description" describing a difference. Therefore, delete. — Sebastian (talk) 23:14, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
• Delete - these pages have nothing substantive in common, only that their names are similar. It is sort of like the people named Harry category we go rid of sometime ago. - SimonP 23:41, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• IBM is on TLAs from IAA to LZZ, but not in :category:TLAs, as it just an article with a TLA as title rather than a list of all possibles TLAs with the letters I B M. Do we need to improve the category description ("pages in this category expand all uses of a given three-letter acronym") or just place those pages with expansions in a differently named category, e.g. :Category:Lists of TLAs? -- User:Docu
• : I am sorry. I still don't see what you're trying to say. What difference is there for you if we keep an article named IBM in a category as opposed to a list? — Sebastian (talk) 03:44, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
• See above. Radiantmeta:mergist 07:12, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Sebastian, IBM doesn't belong go into the category and it isn't in there BTW. IBM (disambiguation) is included.
• : Got it! Thanks to both of you for the explanation. — Sebastian (talk) 06:46, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
• As everybody here assumes IBM should be included in :Category:TLAs, I should probably find a better name for the category. There would indeed not be much of a point of mixing IBM and TCL in the same category.-- User:Docu
• : Are you thinking of a name like "TLA disambiguation pages"? What use do you see for it? — Sebastian (talk) 06:46, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

• Strong delete as overcategorisation. Buffyg 09:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It's overcategorised and serves no real purpose - how could it be useful? Tiefighter 12:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, although splitting up the disambiguation category might become necessary at some point. -Sean Curtin 00:13, Jun 16, 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 delete --Kbdank71 13:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Obsolete, merged with parent cat (since it had only one entry), delete. Radiantmeta:mergist 13:34, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. James F. (talk) 23:06, 14 Jun 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 rename --Kbdank71 14:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As the below, rename it to indicate these are all based in the United States, since 'fraternity' has a rather different meaning in other parts of the world. Radiantmeta:mergist 14:12, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• "United States student fraternities", as below? James F. (talk) 23:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• These two categories are sub-categories of :Category:United States collegial greek life which is in turn a subcategory of :Category:United States student societies which is in turn a subcategory of :Category:Student societies which is in turn a subcategory of both :Category: Student culture and :Category:Clubs and societies. A bunch of unneccessary levels, some with only one or two items. NoSeptember ^(talk) 23:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Not all Fraternities and Sororities are USA based, not even all of the ones that use Greek Letters. The Republic of the Philippines has at least a dozen Social Greek Letter Fraternities of which about half a dozen are National and only one of which has any tie to the USA. The following link is a list -http://www.filipinolinks.com/Education/Fraternities_and_Sororities/Philippines/

Naraht 03:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• True enough, but I think the student society cats could do with splitting by nation anyway, as they're getting overly large. And note that the term 'fraternity' does not refer to a student society in all places in the world (e.g. where I live, it would refer to freemasons, some kind of sect, or an order of priests). Radiantmeta:mergist 07:19, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Except that the majority of fraternity chapters in Canada are part of Fraternities originally founded in the USA (But not all), see http://www.canadiangreeks.com/ and http://www.canadiangreeks.com/directory/. The Historically Black Fraternities and Sororities have graduate chapters in many of the nations of the Caribbean and Western Africa and Alpha Phi Omega of the Philippines has alumni associations in countries running from Australia to Qatar to Canada. May I suggest "Student Greek Letter Organizations" with a *possible* split into "Student Greek Letter Fraternities" and "Student Greek Letter Sororities". (Greek Letter Organizations is the commonly used term to refer to both Fraternities and Sororities.) In place of Student, Collegiate may be used instead.

Naraht 13:37, 15 Jun 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 rename --Kbdank71 14:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At the fix capitalization, but also I'd support renaming it to indicate these are all based in the United States, since 'sorority' has a rather different meaning in other parts of the world. Thoughts please? Radiantmeta:mergist 13:32, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• How about "United States sororities"? --Kbdank71 13:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• "United States student sororities"? James F. (talk) 23:00, 14 Jun 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 delete --Kbdank71 13:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Extremely redundant. Delete. Radiantmeta:mergist 13:32, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. (note that the first time this came up for CfD there was no conesnsus Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 29 ) --Kbdank71 13:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Maybe that was because it was a CFR? It gets one delete vote by Grutness, and no obvious keep votes. Radiantmeta:mergist 15:08, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Very little in common among such people. Pavel Vozenilek 17:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't believe that anyone would find this useful. — Gwalla | Talk 17:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 23:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Sebastian (talk) 23:15, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
• Delete. Postdlf 07:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete too broad/vague, would take massive effort to fill it accurately, and to insufficient benefit. Gronky 21:04, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete useless Buffyg 00:11, 18 Jun 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 rename --Kbdank71 14:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rename to something like September 11 attack on the World Trade Center or maybe something shorter than that, but 9/11 is systemic bias since it's not a recognizable name in most places outside the USA. Radiantmeta:mergist 13:32, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

:The name should not include reference to WTC, since there were other locations involved. Maybe use a title similar to the central article: September 11, 2001 attacks NoSeptember ^(talk) 17:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Rename as per NoSeptember's suggestion. --Kbdank71 18:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• COMMENT how about :Category:2001 September 11 destructive use of airliners? 132.205.94.190 20:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as per NoSeptember. James F. (talk) 23:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as per NoSeptember. — Sebastian (talk) 23:18, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
• Rename as per NoSeptember's counter-offer. Buffyg 09:10, 15 Jun 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 rename --Kbdank71 14:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rename to something like Participants in the 9/11 attacks, or otherwise clarify. Radiantmeta:mergist 13:32, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• COMMENT It seems to clearly indicate the hijacking suspects aboard the four airliners. Ofcourse, there can only ever be 19 members of this category... 132.205.94.190 20:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as per NoSeptember (i.e., "Participants in the September 11, 2001 attacks") - also, more expansive. James F. (talk) 23:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to September 11, 2001 hijackers. (As someone pointed out earlier, "participants" reminds of a game.) — Sebastian (talk) 23:21, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
• COMMENT for consistency, shouldn't this be: :Category:Participants in the 2001 September 11 attacks? 132.205.44.134 23:38, 15 Jun 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 rename --Kbdank71 13:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The main article uses the more frequently used spelling, Al-Qaeda. I suggest renaming the category to match. Grutness...wha? 13:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Rename all. --Kbdank71 14:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rename all. — Sebastian (talk) 23:23, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
• Rename all. Buffyg 09:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rename all. --AI 03:38, 16 Jun 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 nomination withdrawn --Kbdank71 13:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Empty, except for subcat 'south african cricketers'. Delete as such. Radiantmeta:mergist 11:06, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Not empty except for subcat 'South African cricketers' any more! Keep as such. This category looks to be still in its embryonic stages, but could easily get quite a number of other articles and subcategories. Grutness...wha? 12:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Okay, nomination withdrawn. Radiantmeta:mergist 12:33, Jun 14, 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 rename --Kbdank71 13:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Suggest renaming to :Category:Australian cricket teams, etc. (and remove all subsections that aren't teams, unless someone could explain the point thereof) Radiantmeta:mergist 11:05, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

:And what do you propose doing with articles on, say, New Zealand and Australian players who play in England during the southern off-season? I note several of these (Christopher Cairns and Glenn McGrath, to start with) at a cursory glance. These categories are not for the teams themselves, which would be a completely different form of category organisation and contain completely different articles. Grutness...wha? 11:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:*Ah, okay. I didn't realize that. But I still believe these categories should be renamed for clarification, because what you just explained makes a lot of sense but cannot readily be inferred from the cat names (which, apparently, don't have much to do with teams anyway). Radiantmeta:mergist 11:46, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• It obvious to people who are interested in cricket. Please don't interfere further on cricket categories if you don't know the sport. Yes, it is a complex system, but cricket is a complex sport and the cricket category system is generally supported by Wikipedians who know about cricket. CalJW 17:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Well, it should be reworded then to be also obvious to people who don't know much about cricket. If one is ignorant about cricket and willing to learn, Wikipedia should be the first place to look. Radiantmeta:mergist 07:16, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

:You're probably right about the renaming, but the players are listed according to the teams they play for - perhaps :Category:Players in Australian state cricket, :Category:Players in English county cricket, :Category:Players in New Zealand provincial cricket might be simpler titles, although they're not a lot clearer really... it probably needs a complete reorganisation, with parallel categories (e.g., :Category:Australian state cricketers and :Category:Overseas players in Australian state cricket). The whole thing's pretty messy. Grutness...wha? 12:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The current version is far superior to your proposals. All significant players have played in their own countries domestic cricket so the likes of :Category:Players in Australian state cricket is pointless. It is much better to categorise say an Indian who has played for Yorkshire with other players who have played with Yorkshire than say with an Australian who has played for Gloucestershire. CalJW 17:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I don't see the problem with shortening the names as originally suggested. If someone from Australia plays in England during the offseason, put him in both :Category:Australian cricket teams and :Category:English cricket teams. --Kbdank71 13:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• The categories :Category:English first class cricket teams, :Category:Australian first class cricket teams and so on already exist and are for the teams themselves. We then also have categories for the players in a particular team: :Category:Durham cricketers, :Category:Surrey cricketers, :Category:New South Wales cricketers, etc. It is the parent category of *these* categories that we are discussing: a parent category for categories of players for individual teams, not of the teams themselves. --Ngb 00:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The delete votes are from users who come from countries where cricket is barely played. This is obviously the best way to organise these articles due to the way players move around. CalJW 17:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Remember that what is obvious to you may not be to others. I don't see how keeping such a clunky name is better than the original rename suggestion. --Kbdank71 17:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• It isn't obvious if it's only understandable to people familiar with the subject area. Just like articles on Quantum physics, articles on Cricket should be understandable and accessible to layman. That's the whole point of an encyclopedia. Radiantmeta:mergist 07:16, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
• I do know the game (and was a reasonable right arm off-spinner, for that matter), but I still think the categories should be renamed to something a little less convoluted. There is a use for the categories, but the names need work. Perhaps :Category:Players in Australian domestic cricket by team, :Category:Players in English domestic cricket by team, :Category:Players in New Zealand domestic cricket by team, etc might be an improvement. Grutness...wha? 10:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::::I would support such a renaming, whereas I would strongly oppose the suggested renaming to 'Australian/English/Whatever cricket teams' as that clearly isn't what the category is for. --Ngb 23:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::::I should also comment that one of the reasons for the klunky 'Players who have appeared in' nomenclature is probably that we decided, in accordance with cricketing convention, to categorise a player according to *all* the teams he has played for. For a lot of players this is only one, but international-level players (the ones most likely to have articles on Wikipedia) are very mobile and, as has been commented above, may play in the domestic cricket of other countries during their own country's off-season. So, for example, Ian Botham (an extreme example) is categorised by :Category:Somerset cricketers, :Category:Worcestershire cricketers, :Category:Durham cricketers and :Category:Queensland cricketers. The nomenclature 'Players in $foo domestic cricket by team' may carry an overtone of 'at the present time' that the current naming doesn't. However, my own opinion is that the current naming is so klunky that Grutness's suggested renaming would be an improvement despite this. --Ngb 00:07, 21 Jun 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 nomination withdrawn --Kbdank71 13:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Empty, except for one subcategory for Jamaica. Suggest delete, and re-cat Jamaica in the parent cat. Radiantmeta:mergist 11:05, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

:Again, this looks like an embryionic category (as with the South African one above). This could very easily be populated. Most of the best cricketers in the WI team come from Guyana, Barbados, and Antigua, so I suspect those three categories will appear very soon. In fact, I've just looked, and there were three more categories that should have been in here, so it looks a bit more useful now... Grutness...wha? 12:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, nomination withdrawn. Radiantmeta:mergist 12:33, Jun 14, 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 13:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is offensive. What encyclopedic purpose does it have to pigeonhole philosophers by their sexual orientation? Certainly, a list of theorists whose work concerns sexuality is valid, but this is lazy and prurient XmarkX 06:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Not sure if it's offensive, but it's certainly pointless, as for most of them their sexuality has nothing to do with their philosophy. Delete. Radiantmeta:mergist 10:59, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. I'd have agreed with you both on this, but for the fact that I got beat up over my vote to delete LGBT Ancient Greeks. Apparently many people do think it is encyclopedic, but they'll all miss this vote, and jump up and down when it does get deleted. --Kbdank71 13:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• For the record, in that case it should be renamed to LGBT philosophers. Radiantmeta:mergist 14:07, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Irrelevant clutter. CalJW 16:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sexual orientation isn't particularly relevant to philosophy. We don't need a subcat for every intersection of two categories; articles can be multi-categorized. — Gwalla | Talk 17:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• COMMENT wouldn't this category necessarily include just about all ancient greek philosophers? 132.205.94.190 20:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• No, for reasons given under a different CfD above.
• Delete, obviously; "Philosophers of homosexuality", OTOH, might be useful. James F. (talk) 23:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because Kbdank71 is a chicken ;-p (Seriously, I commend your symbolic step out of the deletionist camp, but you were right about this one originally.) — Sebastian (talk) 23:27, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
• Delete. Postdlf 07:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Of extremely limited interest in the history of philosophy. In any case, would gender object preference really be suitable to convey the specific sexual orientation of some of these people? Buffyg 09:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but remove Ludwig Wittgenstein, Richard Montague, and Francesco Algarotti. The remaining philosophers all have done work concerning sexuality and gender issues and are all sufficiently uncontested and 20th century enough for this category to make sense. Hey, if someone wants to look up philosophers by their sexuality why should we be in the business of preventing that? -Seth Mahoney 23:53, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

::Objection: if people want to run around sniffing sheets, that's their perogatives. Preventing them and obliging them with categories defined by criteria at once arbitrary and overinvested are different matters. If someone wants to say thoughtful things about philosophers and sex, I'd encourage them. Philosophers who are queer in whatever way and writing something philosophically compelling about it are, however, not identical populations, making the former seem far less compelling. Intemperate conclusion: as it is, the concantenation of gender object choice and this particular vocation seems no more important than providing categories for adulterous novelists, monarchs with children out of wedlock, pedophile parliamentarians, and gay Nazis, all of which will find interested parties. Buffyg 00:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::Object all you want. My vote is still keep. Here's the deal: I'm fine with creating categories for adulterous novelists, monarchs with children out of wedlock, pedophile parlimentarians, and gay Nazis, so long as there are sufficient articles to populate them and people interested in maintaining the categories. I've maintained this position through several votes, and I'll maintain it as long as I'm active on Wikipedia. As far as queer philosophers not constituting identical populations, well, yes, but neither the categories queers nor philosophers constitute identical populations on their own. Why should you expect this of the category queer philosophers (which, actually, I'd prefer as a title, but I know that's not going to happen)? As far as reducing sexuality to gender object choice, well, that's a perfectly valid way to look at things, but it is highly reductionist - it leaves a lot of what sexuality is and is not out of the picture. The fact is that the philosophers that would remain in the category if I had my way write in a way that is clearly affected by their "gender object choice". -Seth Mahoney 02:54, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

:::::My point in highlighting the non-identity of philosophers who are queer and those who have written something interesting about sexuality is that you explicitly add predicates that cannot be adduced from the name of the category: "The remaining philosophers all have done work concerning sexuality and gender issues and are all sufficiently uncontested and 20th century enough for this category to make sense." Perhaps the requirements about the 20th century nearly make sense on the theory that sexual identity as we currently try to understand it is a phenomenon of recent vintage, but I tend to think that century boundary arbitrary in the elaboration of such a hypothesis. In any case, I continue to have the sense that, further to arguments about justifying the work to maintain these categories (I've already said that I don't believe it justified), such work is complicated where the criteria defining the category are unclear (not to mention unstated, which together limit their interest and utility to readers) and therefore likely to aggrevate maintenance. Buffyg 12:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::::::I totally agree that the boundaries of the category are iffy, wiggley, nebulous, or whatever, much like the boundaries of many other categories. I also totally agree that if this category is kept (which it is looking like it wont be) we need to specify those boundaries. The category page itself is a perfectly fine place to do that. I think you've overstated your point, though, when you extend the shadiness of the category's boundaries into the realm of reader interest. I can guarantee that even with the most expansive boundaries (such as those that would include "LGBT ancient Greeks"), there would remain plenty of interest and utility (just look at the gay and lesbian section of any bookstore - the sheer number of books which attempt to "reclaim" some person of historical interest as gay or lesbian should make my point perfectly clear), I just think such a category would be misleading. So yeah, I think I'm with you in a sense when I say, hey, if by a miracle this category is kept, we will need to strictly define who should and should not be added, and yes, that means imposing artificial boundaries, but we do that with every category, so hey, why not this one? -Seth Mahoney 19:13, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, but rename to :Category:LGBT philosophers. Jonathunder 00:18, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
• Keep, but rename to LGBT philosophers. --20px Spinboy 00:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:*I'd be fine with that rename. Change my vote to rename to :Category:LGBT philosophers. -Seth Mahoney 06:02, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but rename to :Category:LGBT philosophers as above. Axon 13:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• rename but very definately KEEP. CDThieme 17:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rename to :Category:LGBT philosophers as above. -- Nigosh 23:46, 20 Jun 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 delete --Kbdank71 13:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What encyclopedic purpose does it have to pigeonhole philosophers by their sexual orientation? for most of them their sexuality has nothing to do with their philosophy. Radiantmeta:mergist 14:30, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as above. First time I've ever agreed with Radiant I think. CalJW 16:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Yay! Radiantmeta:mergist 07:16, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. the same reason as similar categories. Pavel Vozenilek 17:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, yes. James F. (talk) 23:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Sebastian (talk) 23:27, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
• Delete. Postdlf 07:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Again, of extremely limited interest in the history of philosophy and seemingly insufficient to be of direct philosophical interest. Buffyg 09:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Why don't we keep this to one category at a time, to avoid some of the problems with CfD that have occurred in the past? -Seth Mahoney 23:58, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep :Category:Bisexual philosophers, provided that more people than just Simone de Beauvoir can be added to it. -Seth Mahoney 23:58, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete :Category:Philosophers by sexuality and gender. Sexuality and gender aren't sufficiently closely tied to warrant them being smashed into a single category. I would say split it into two categories, but no one wants to populate :Category:Male philosophers, and with only two subcategories, :Category:Philosophers by sexuality isn't especially useful. -Seth Mahoney 23:58, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

:* Agree, Delete :Category:Philosophers by sexuality and gender. Merge Homosexual & Bisexual cats to :Category:LGBT philosophers, :Category:Women in philosophy should stand as is in main cat. -- Nigosh 23:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC).

• Keep, but merged with the above entry as :Category:LGBT philosophers. Jonathunder 01:51, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

:*I'm fine with merging :Category:Bisexual philosophers with a new :Category:LGBT philosophers. Change my vote to merge. -Seth Mahoney 06:04, Jun 20, 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 13:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A 'meta-category', a category listing all categories underneath :Category:Cricket. Apparently created because people are too lazy to browse through child categories. I believe a list would be more appropriate in this circumstance, because lists of categories are easier to maintain than normal lists, and also because this would avoid having an extra redundant category on every Cricket article. --bainer (talk) 05:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• List of category of tables of... whatever. Delete. Radiantmeta:mergist 08:24, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
• A list made as a tree (similar to the stub list used by the stub sorters at WP:WSS/ST) would probably be easier to use than this, as well. This is in active use by the cricket WP though, so this should only be deleted unless it is replaced by a list. And they seem to be keener on using the category, so I'm swayed towards supporting a keep here. Grutness...wha? 11:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and don't listify. Fix the category structure as it's supposed to be. --Kbdank71 14:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Actually, I already listified it to use as an exhibit in a discussion I was having about this category a few days ago: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Cricket subcategories. I should also point out that there was a CfD for this category about four months ago, immortalized in Category talk:Cricket subcategories, and much argument ensued. I hope this one will be more conclusive. Bryan 15:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is, as previously discussed in a recent CfD for the same category, an invaluable tool for participants in the Cricket Wikiproject. Conversion to a list is unsuitable as the list would need to be manually updated every time a new category was developed. I am also unimpressed with another example of Wikipedians bashing other people's Wikiprojects: apparently all of us on WikiProject Cricket are 'too lazy'. *sigh* --Ngb 16:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This has been discussed before. It is useful to readers as well. I haven't contrubuted much to the cricket articles, but I use this. CalJW 16:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm reluctant to vote again in a CfD that repeats a previous one so soon, but I guess my opinion is my opinion. Failing that, I'm still hoping to move this category's tags into the talk pages of the subcategories that are in it, at least taking it out of the main article category tree. Bryan 03:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to something like :Wikipedia:WikiProject cricket categorization. Much of the content belongs in the existing geographic categories and should be moved there (currently, many have no parent geographical cat). Just about all comments in favour of retention identify it as a useful editorial tool, not as a means of making a user's research easier. While it exists as is, there is no impetus on the category contributors to move material out and into useful and meaningful cricket sub cats. -- Nigosh 23:24, 20 Jun 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.