Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 25

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

:The result of the discussion was: delete. Upmerge to Category: Political websites. Note also particular problems with U.S. vs. international use of the term "liberal." jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Liberal websites}}

:Nominator's rationale: Just as the previous category "American Liberals" was deleted, this one should also be deleted for the same reason. "Liberal" is completely subjective designation and is therefore far too vague of a criteria for a category. Inclusion in this category could never be determined objectively, but rather merely supported by the opinion of others. Loonymonkey (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• keep a category for liberal websites is no less legitimate in WP (except in POV thinking) than the same category type for conservative websites: :Category:Conservative websites. This is not the case of both being trash; they are both useful for WP readers. Hmains (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

:This ignores the rationale for deletion entirely. How is it determined whether a website should be included in this category? --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

::See my exaplanation below. Signature^brendel 01:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Many web-sites, just like people may identify clearly as being liberal. My only suggestion would be specify whether or not this cat referes to modern or classic liberal web-sites since WP is international and supposed to be non-U.S. centric (otherwise using the term liberal would be anambigous). Signature^brendel 01:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep As with others I voted keep on, make sure to limit it to self-avowed websites. Still some websites do have an admitted/planned liberal or conservative outlook.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Several websites clearly identify as liberal. This category is part of the :Category:Political websites. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Liberal is POV and subjective. Calling yourself a liberal doesn't make you so. Why don't we have :Category:True websites for those websites that say they publish the truth. Same reason.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. You are unlikely to need a category for "classic liberal websites", I agree with the subjectivity problems as well. You could rename to "Progressive Websites" to convey what the category does now more accurately, but I still think there is too much POV. If the articles self-identify as a progressive website, it will say so in the first sentence or two regardless, so we would not be losing anything really. MrPrada (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete but upmerge content There is of course the issue of objectively defining what a liberal website is, not to mention the complex problem of the use of "liberal". American editors seem almost oblivious to the fact that the term is used differently in just about any other country, whereas the category is not a priori restricted to American websites. But more than anything, this is overcategorization: by using this subcategory, we are isolating these from the much more meaningful and almost perfectly objective category of political websites. There is no need to distinguish at the level of categories between political websites that are liberal, conservative, sort of centrist, kind of libertarian with a zest of hawkishness on international affairs, etc. These nuances should be part of the articles but splitting the political websites according to political orientation precisely destroys the possibility of a finer classification at the article level. Political websites should (and for the most part are) classified by country, this is all we need. Pichpich (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Entirely ambiguous name. Either delete or merge into :Category:Political websites as seems best, but completely unsustainable in this form. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Upmerge to :Category:Political websites per several above. Otto4711 (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

----

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

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

:The result of the discussion was: Keep. No consensus, and no issues of U.S. vs. international usage. jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Modern liberal American magazines}}

:Nominator's rationale: Just as the previous category "American liberals" was deleted, this one should also be deleted for the same reasons. "Liberal" is completely subjective opinion and is therefore far too vague of a criteria for a category. Inclusion in this category could never be determined objectively, but rather merely supported by the opinion of others. Loonymonkey (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

keep for the same reasons that :Category:Liberals was recently kept by WP. Read the articles. Same as :Category:Conservative American magazines. Hmains (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

:::Category:Liberals was kept for entirely different reasons. It is a high-level category and is very strict in its criteria for inclusion. Note that on that category's page it states specifically "NOTE: to be included in this category, people must define themselves as liberals; a given editor's subjective opinion of that person's politics is irrelevant." Clearly, with this category, that is not the case. How is it determined whether a magazine is included?

:::Just like people, some magazines, the TNR and American Prospect come to mind, identify themselves clearly as modern liberal. In other instances verviable third party info is available categorizing magazines as such; see my post below. Signature^brendel 00:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep Modern liberalism is a well-defined term, whose meaning is universal (note that I am not simply using the term "liberal," which could refer to either classical or modern liberalism). Second, magazines often identify their position very clearly; thus determining whether or not a magazine, such as The New Republic, is modern liberal is easy - soucres, often the magazines' own editorial board are available. This category can be maintained just as easily as the "political positions" column added for UK news periodicals. Signature^brendel 00:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

:Self-identification is one thing, but identification as such by others, especially by critics, cannot be considered reliable (especially given the often pejorative nature of the word "liberal" in modern American politics). --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

::I some cases yes, but not always. For example, tetriary level political-economy textbooks and scholarly articles may identify certain magazines clearly as such. Certain mass media outlets, such as Newsweek are also trustworthy (e.g. Newsweek refered to the National Review as conservative, and can be used as a reputable sources. True, not all critics or oberservers are trustworthy, but that is what WP's reputable source guidelines are for. The perjorative use of the word liberal is immauture and found only in sources that do not fit WP guidelines for reputable sources. If WP guidelines for sourcing are adhered to it is easily possible to use third part sources to determine a magazine's political leainings. Furthermore, the fact that magazines do self-identify (e.g. TNR & AP) is sufficient cause to keep this category per rationale used for :Category:liberals. Regards, Signature^brendel 01:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Magazines can, and often do, have a clearer/consistent political ideology compared to people.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Liberal is in the eye of the beholder. Calling yourself a liberal doesn't make you so. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or rename "progressive" per my comment above. MrPrada (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per my comment above on liberal websites. There is no added value to isolating political magazines into categories for their political orientation. There is of course the problem of objectivity but also the problem of precision. By fitting magazines into neat little boxes like "liberal" and "conservative", we are artificially creating a reductionist view of a magazine's political stance. There's a whole spectrum of political opinions and a whole spectrum of representation of these positions in magazines. Editorial boards change, political orientations drift (see The New Republic). Most op-ed writers, though generally fairly predictable in their opinions, are not dogmatic and none of these magazines are strictly closed to different views. The nuances should be part of the articles. Pichpich (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

----

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

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

:The result of the discussion was: Keep. No consensus. jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

:{{Lc|American liberal organizations}}

:Nominator's rationale: Just as the previous category "American Liberals" was deleted, this one should also be deleted for the same reason. "Liberal" is completely subjective opinion and is therefore far too vague of a criteria for a category. Inclusion in this category could never be determined objectively, but rather merely supported by the opinion of others. Loonymonkey (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

keep for the same reasons that :Category:Liberals was recently kept by WP. Read the articles. Same as :Category:Conservative organizations in the United States Hmains (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Organizations issue mission statements that may clearly identify their position on the political compass and authoritative sources on the positions of prominent position are commonly available. Signature^brendel 01:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons stated by the above person. Organizations can have mission statements that say they're liberal so it's more defined.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per my comments on the cfd's above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

----

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

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

:The result of the discussion was: Delete. jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

:{{Lc|American liberal politicians}}

:Nominator's rationale: "Liberal politician" is an opinion and thus a purely subjective designation. Inclusion in this category can not be substantiated other than by the opinion of others. Loonymonkey (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

keep for the same reasons that :Category:Liberals was recently kept by WP. Read the articles. Hmains (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

:That was kept for entirely different reasons. It is a high-level category and is very strict in its criteria for inclusion. Note that on that category's page it states specifically "NOTE: to be included in this category, people must define themselves as liberals; a given editor's subjective opinion of that person's politics is irrelevant." Clearly, with these categories you created that is not the case. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

::Do not presume that you know what I am thinking as you clearly do not. The contents of the articles is the reason for placing these articles in this category. I trust the authors of the articles and the continued WP editing of them; clearly, you do not. Compare to :Category:Paleoconservatives and :Category:Conservatives, both of which should have 'American' subcats and would have except for the pernicious idea of some WP editors that Americans cannot have political activities and positions and be categorized as such--that only European political categories are legitimate. Hmains (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

:::I haven't claimed to know what you are thinking. But you have populated the contents of this category with people that are considered to be liberal (by you or others) rather than those who self-identify as being liberal politicians, the much stricter standard in :Category:Liberals. It is completely subjective and relies entirely on opinion. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

::::Well, the wise thing to do then is to remove those people who don't self-identify as liberals or for whom reputable third party sources are not available. This category can still serve a purpose, however, IMHO. Signature^brendel 01:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::Personally I don't think those categories should exist when applied to people. "Paleoconservative" in particular is something of a neologism.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

::::::Note that it continues to be difficult for Americans to identify themselves ase 'liberals', given that organized American Conservative slanders have had the effect of anyone so labeling themselves to then become instant political roadkill. Hmains (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Sure by I'm not for a :Category:American conservative politicians either. There are self-identified conservatives, but there's debate on what "American conservatism" even is just as much.--T. Anthony (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

:Hmains, the fact that the category for liberals was kept is in fact a very strong reason to delete the present one. The point that was made in the case of :Category:Liberals is that it was an important companion to articles on liberalism. The US is one of the few countries where liberal has an entirely different meaning and the present category certainly has no business being a subcat of :Category:Liberals. Whereas other countries have liberal parties that were at least originally constructed around the principles of liberalism, the term in American political science is vague and has no relation whatsoever to liberalism. Pichpich (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Many American politicans, current and former (JFK comes to mind), identify as liberals. For others reputable third part sources are available. It is, therefore, possible to objectively determine whether a politican is a modern liberal. Signature^brendel 01:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete When applied to people the term "liberal" is more easily disputed/nebulous than with magazines or organizations. Especially as people may change self-identification more thoroughly and disapprove of their previous identification.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per T. Anthony and as impermissibly subjective. Otto4711 (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• comment in most cases in WP, first person content is not allowed, instead we need second person writing to post as documented fact. 'Self-identification' is certainly first person content so why is held out here as being of any importance whatsoever. Hmains (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per my comments above - and for the additional reason that over time the meaning of "liberal" has changed so that grouping people of vastly different times as claiming themselves as "liberal" isn't useful in any encyclopedic or searching sense. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, but not per above, in the sense that it is a noun and not an adjective. There is the Liberal Party of New York, and I believe incarnations of similar parties in other states. If we want to identify idealogy per Conservative politicians, magazines, etc. (which is also too subjective for me, personally), we should use the term Progressive, as many Conservatives turn out to be classical liberals by a global definition, which makes everything confusing. MrPrada (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Let me first refute MrPrada's argument (which does have some merit). Because of the ambiguity, any category for the Liberal Party of New York would have to be created under a title that makes sure it gets populated correctly. Clearly, sticking with the current name is bound to create miscategorization. Now, for the original keep argument, the fact remains that "liberal" in the American political context is such a nebulous concept that it cannot possibly serve as a useful tool for categorization. Few politicians, if any nowadays, wholeheartedly embrace that label and the meaning that people ascribe to it is so fleeting that it does not properly carry a substantial meaning. Pichpich (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

----

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

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

:The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

:In :Category:George W. Bush administration controversies, propose converting initial information to a list (or article) but retaining category. There is much too much information at the beginning of the category page., It ought to be removed. I'm sorry if using CFR is the wrong procedure for this. —Markles 22:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Simple edit to fix. Would you like to withdraw this nomination? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oh, sure. Can you withdraw the nomination, please? Cheers! —Markles 23:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

----

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

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

:The result of the discussion was: delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Non-free GFDL images}}

:Nominator's rationale: Category that makes no sense, you can't have an image that is non-free AND GFDL at the same time. Both images which were in it were just cigarette packages also labeled with {{tl|Non-free logo}}. ViperSnake151 21:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

----

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

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

:The result of the discussion was: delete per consensus below, regardless of the pre-emptive emptying of the category before the discussion was closed. Bencherlite^Talk 21:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Albums produced by James Stroud}}

:Nominator's rationale: This producer doesn't have a page on Wikipedia; no need for a category. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom and per my general objection to this category structure. Otto4711 (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - now this guy does have sole producer status (eg on Alibis (album)) but lacks an article. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I'll withdraw if someone makes a page on the producer. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & per Otto. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

----

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

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

:The result of the discussion was: merge. Bencherlite^Talk 23:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

:Suggest merging :Category:Members of the United States armed forces to :Category:American military personnel

:Nominator's rationale: Both categories serve the same purpose - people in the US military. Although "American military personnel" may not be the best name, the categories for personnel in other countries' militaries currently use the "nationality military personnel" format (see :Category:Military personnel by nation). I am currently starting a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Renaming of "Military personnel by nation" subcategories to propose a better name, but merging these two categories is a separate matter. Scott Alter 19:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Seem to be exact duplicates. —Kevin Myers 20:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I would probably say no to a merge, except for the fact that both are being used incorrectly. Members of State Guard Units, such as the New York Guard, would be considered American Military Personal, but not members of the United States armed forces. Members of the United States Merchant Marines, would be considered members of the armed forces during a time of war, but not military personnel. I think some delineation is needed, without claiming to know what that would be. MrPrada (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

:*I think you are associating "military personnel" with "non-civilian, uniformed servicemen;" however, I am not making the same association. Someone who works for the military, whether civilian or not, is personnel of the military. This would include Merchant Marines - a "civilian auxiliary of the U.S. Navy." A current problem with the category is the ambiguity of whether it is meant only for the Military of the United States (nationwide) or all militaries in the United States (state-based or otherwise). I don't think you should use these two categories to make this distinction, as I believe these categories were created for the same purpose - members is synonymous with personnel, and armed forces is synonymous with military. If you want distinguish state vs. national, I'd recommend creating a new category, rather than trying to make do with a poorly named category. In any case, your point that Merchant Marines should not be included in military personnel is moot, as there is no category for members of the Merchant Marines. --Scott Alter 22:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Honestly, I'm puzzled as to why this category was created to begin with. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 09:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Honestly, I don't know why I created it in the first place either other than it was the result of a cfd discussion. I didn't link the discussion on the talk page for some reason, and don't really feel interested enough to go look for it. Syrthiss (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Do not merge: further analysis needed See :Category:American soldiers (and its supercat :Category:Soldiers) of which :Category:Members of the United States armed forces. It seems merging this in the manner proposed would negatively impact the soldiers category structure. Hmains (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• By doing some further analysis, I found that for all other countries, the soldiers category is a subcategory of the military personnel category (when a military personnel category exists for that country). In the US, not all "Members of the United States armed forces" are soldiers, so this category is currently misclassified anyway. Additionally, :Category:United States Army soldiers was misplaced in :Category:Soldiers by nationality. I just added two categories to :Category:American soldiers - :Category:United States Army soldiers and :Category:Continental Army soldiers. Now, American soldiers correctly contains the categories of soldiers in the US military. I do not think there are any other military in the US that are called soldiers, so this categorization should be fine and "Members of the United States armed forces" can be removed without negatively impacting the soldiers category structure. --Scott Alter 15:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• merge per nom. The new name is the proper name for this class of people. I did some further work to protect the integrity of the soldiers category by adding various subcats to it. Hmains (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

----

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

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

:The result of the discussion was: rename. Bencherlite^Talk 23:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:United States Marine Corps people to :Category:United States Marine Corps personnel

:Nominator's rationale: Personnel is more commonly used for military categories than people. The other branches of the US military use personnel (:Category:Members of the United States armed forces) and other countries also use personnel (:Category:Military personnel and subcategories). Scott Alter 19:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Certainly "personnel" is the preferred term -- Rename per nom. Cgingold (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• rename per nom. To match all sister categories and common military usage. Even though I was the creator of the category! Hmains (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

----

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

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

:The result of the discussion was: rename. Bencherlite^Talk 23:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Songs by Tony Hatch to :Category:Songs written by Tony Hatch

:Nominator's rationale: This should be renamed so that it's more clear that these are songs written by him, as opposed to being sung by him. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Rename per nom, and per many in :Category:Songs by songwriter. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Fine with me. For clarity, "songs written by" and "songs performed by" as two good and separate phrases. "Songs by" should refer to the composer, although it is not as clear -- "written" is better. Paul (talk)

----

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

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

:The result of the discussion was: delete. Bencherlite^Talk 22:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Bill Clinton appeals-court nominees who were never confirmed to :Category:Unconfirmed candidates for the United States Court of Appeals nominated by President Bill Clinton

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. I think the current cat name is a bit awkard, uses a dash which is unconventional, and does not fully convey the notability of the categorized subjects. MrPrada (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Failing a judicial nomination isn't a defining characteristic (and most of them are unnotable). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or at least substantially rework, or listify. Bailey Aldrich, a successful nominee, is not categorised by administration so it's not clear why categories for unsuccessful nominees should be more specific. There could perhaps be :Category:United States court of appeals nominees to complement :Category:United States court of appeals judges. (There are categories of presidential candidates, eg :Category:United States presidential candidates, 1992, but failure is left implicit.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

:*Actually, Bill Clinton is in the candidates category. Otto4711 (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

::* Failure of the other 33 is left implicit. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. After this nomination, I created an article which includes a list of the unconfirmed nominees at Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies#List of failed nominees.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete non-defining. Brewcrewer already listified (thanks!). gidonb (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Even without Bc's list I would have argued that this is not of sufficient importance to serve as the basis for a category. With the list already in place, there's nothing left to discuss. Cgingold (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Rename. It makes sense to rename the category and to eliminate the dash and also to better express the clear notability of the categorized subjects. Jarvishunt (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete possibly defining, but ultimately better as a list, lest we have 40-odd of these, and 40 more of them for district court judges, and 40 more for every other office requiring Senate confirmation (ambassadors, general officers, cabinet secretaries - many of their underlings, fed governors, people on all sorts of boards, commissions, commissioners of the IRS, FBI, and many of their underlings, etc.) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

----

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

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

:The result of the discussion was: merge both. Bencherlite^Talk 22:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

:Suggest merging :Category:AIDS-related LGBT deaths to :Category:AIDS-related deaths

:Amending nomination to include merging :Category:AIDS-related LGBT American deaths to :Category:AIDS-related deaths

:Nominator's rationale: Merge - not a useful subcategorization of the parent. VIolates Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality by ghettoizing LGBT people who have died of AIDS-related causes. Otto4711 (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merge per nom; and each article is already in a G or LGBT category. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. Absolutely inappropriate, as it sets up the dubious notion that there's a meaningful difference to be had between being an LGBT person who died of AIDS vs. a straight person who died of AIDS. I don't know what the reasoning was in this particular case, but that kind of distinction usually points toward rhetoric on the level of "the fags deserved it". Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per Otto and Bearcat. -Sean Curtin (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A large percent of these articles I say third of Category:AIDS-related LGBT deaths, were LGBT, also 71% of the people who have HIV in USA are Homosexual according to CDC, they are overepresented by a large percent as I result I created the category because they make up a good amount of the AIDS related deaths, I think this distinction was notable enough to deserve its own category --209.184.113.227 (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I myself created the category, and I am gay, the category exists because just like there is a category for :category:Gay writers, :Category:LGBT literature because it is notable enough considering the category to be a subcategory --209.184.113.227 (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

::See WP:CATGRS. :category:Gay writers and :Category:LGBT literature exist because they represent a distinct genre of literature in its own right, which has a substantial body of media coverage and academic study as a distinct topic. The validity of this category is determined not by whether LGBT people exist who died of AIDS, but by whether there's a meaningful difference to be had between being an LGBT person who died of AIDS and being a straight person who died of AIDS. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merge per roundhouse0. If not merge, rename to :Category:AIDS-related deaths of LGBT people: it is the person that was "LGBT", not his or her death. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

:*Strongly oppose the suggested rename or any other suggestion that maintains this ghettoization. Otto4711 (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

:*:Yes, so do I. That's why I said "merge". I merely indicated that if the final consensus were "keep", then I think the name of the category is not correct. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep There are more than 100 articles in :Category:AIDS-related LGBT deaths, also the disease is more common in LGBT people, just as Tay Sachs is more common in Jews, and Sickle-cell in African-Americans --Joe1978 (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The Center for Disease Control said the LGBT people are the highest risk group for HIV and AIDS --Joe1978 (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

:The size of a potential category is not the determining factor in whether the category is appropriate or not. The encyclopedicity of the distinction that the category sets up is the determining factor. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There used to be 337 articles in :Category:AIDS-related deaths, its new subcategory, :Category:AIDS-related LGBT deaths took 138 of those articles --Joe1978 (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep According to the categorization rules, "A sexuality-specific category could be implemented where sexuality has a specific relation to the topic." --Joe1978 (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

:*You're misunderstanding what that sentence means if you think it applies to this. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I created :Category:AIDS-related LGBT American deaths which is a subcat of :Category:LGBT people from the United States and :Category:AIDS-related LGBT deaths

This will help make these two cats smaller --Joe1978 (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

:*First, I have stricken your !vote above because you only get one !vote per discussion. Second, I strongly encourage you not to continue creating and populating sub-cats of this category while this discussion is ongoing. Doing so could be seen as disruptive, and if this category is deleted it will simply result in additional clean-up work. Finally, the notion that AIDS has a specific relation to the subject of homosexuality reflects Western-centric bias. The vast majority of people infected with HIV or who have AIDS or have died of AIDS-related causes in the world are not LGBT. Splitting out AIDS-related deaths on the basis of the LGBT status of the dead does not reflect a specific relation to the topic. Otto4711 (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

::*LGBT people are a high risk group also in China, Czech republic (more than 1/2 of people with AIDS in that country are male Homosexuals alone) etc. --Joe1978 (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

::*The subcategorization is based off the fact that a good portion of Category:AIDS-related deaths, are indeed LGBT people --Joe1978 (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

:::*I don't know if this will link properly because it's a [http://www.who.int/hiv/mediacentre/2006_GR-PressKitGraphics_en.ppt#306,1,Slide 1 slide show] from the World Health Organization. Looking at slide 2, we see that the number of adults and children living with AIDS or HIV in sub-Saharan Africa in 2005 was 24.6 million. That's more than the number of people living with HIV/AIDS in North America, Europe, Latin America, "Oceania," Asia, North Africa and the Middle East combined. Even assuming that those infections are disproportionately distributed in Europe and North America amongst LGBT people, the overwhelming majority of global AIDS cases and global AIDS deaths are not LGBT. These simple numerical facts, coupled with the ghettoization issue raised by WP:CATGRS and the neutrality issues involved in linking LGBT to HIV/AIDS through the category system are more than sufficient to show why these categories should not exist. Otto4711 (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

:::*We don't divide living people within :Category:HIV-positive people into subcategories based on whether they contracted it from gay sex, straight sex, blood transfusions or intravenous drug use, because it would be completely inappropriate. So why on earth would we do that for dead people? Bearcat (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Redundant and not useful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. Not a useful intersection of categories. Is badly named even if it was worth keeping. --Alynna (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge contrary to WP:CATGRS - as that expression of policy/guidelines is fundamentally wrong in many ways - does anyone doubt that there is a non-trivial intersection between the LGBT population and AIDS deaths in much of the developed world and that much literature exists on this intersection - certainly much more than on Cubans of Iraqi descent and other vaunted categories being kept elsewhere. The result here will hopefully be the beginning of the knocking down of the WP:CATGRS wall that is working to divide people based on categories that WP focuses on and that the people involved do not. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

::The link between HIV and the LGBT community is not the issue. The issue here is whether having been LGBT or straight during their lifetime sets people up as belonging to different classes of death. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Paul B (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. Redundant category - if I were looking up people who succumbed to an AIDS-related illness, I couldn't be sure if they were all LGBT or not. All should be in same category. Besides, many people, little is known of how they contracted the disease or if they were even LGBT. ExRat (talk) 04:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge! This is so horrible - as an LGBT person I know its more common for us to develop the disease but this just rubs it in, why should we be singled out? Is a person's orientation really relevant to way in which they die, I really don't see any morality in that at all sorry guys but I just don't like it and I'm sure there are many people who share my view --86.131.130.101 (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

----

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

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

:The result of the discussion was: delete. Bencherlite^Talk 22:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

{{Lc|Sole survivors of aviation accidents or incidents}}

• Delete - Overcategorization: This is a sub-category of :Category:Survivors of aviation accidents or incidents, which I believe adequately categorizes these individuals. The fact that they are/were "sole survivors", while interesting, is not such a significant distinction as to require a separate sub-category. Moreover, there is already a :List of sole survivors of aviation accidents or incidents. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. For info, the article for Vesna Vulović has the category :Category:Fall survivors - defined as "People who have survived great falls"! Lugnuts (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• The creator of the category left a note on my talk page; here's the pertinent sentence:

:"Something must've prompted me to create the category, but I don't mind if it's removed." ~ Sardanaphalus

Easy come, easy go. :) Cgingold (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete interesting concept, but ultimately not useful. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

----

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

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

:The result of the discussion was: Rename. There's been no argument against the basic proposal to rename, which doesn't really affect any ongoing discussions about the larger category (or subcategories). jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:World War II politics to :Category:Politics of World War II

:Nominator's rationale: to conform with naming conventions and interWiki use in specific category reference (Politics) first and general reference last (World War II). mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: As it currently stands, this category is rather a mess. Not only is there an ongoing disagreement between User:mrg3105 and another editor over the explanatory material, but under any plausible inclusion criteria most of the current sub-categories should be removed, as they are not focused on politics. Another issue is where it belongs in terms of parent cats, and how that relates to its intended purpose. At present it has just a single parent cat, the recently created :Category:Political science of the Second World War, which appears to be focused on inter-country politics, rather than internal, domestic politics. If this category is to focus on the latter, it would be better placed in {{cat|Home front during World War II}} -- and should probably re renamed to {{cat|Domestic politics during World War II}}. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)