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 13:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should be moved to Category:Gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender people (note that its soon-to-be-deleted sub-categories were all GBLT, not GBL, despite the category's name). James F. (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: we have guidelines for categorizing people. They are available at Wikipedia:Categorization of people, and much of the debate, which started due to categories like this, that went into creating them is on the talk page. Keep this in mind when making your vote.

• I still think this should be deleted. Andros 1337 01:02, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, leaves to much room for 'opinion' as its now written. Chance0 01:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I have to agree with James F. -- making the category more transgender-inclusive was one of the reasons I created the subcategories that just got deleted in the first place. (And somebody still owes me a damn good explanation for how that discussion could take place and get resolved without anybody contacting me.) However, I'm getting pretty fucking sick and tired of people arguing that LGBT-related categories should be deleted altogether; there is no valid reason for doing so outside of pure and simple homophobia. It's simply a factual grouping, and it bewilders me that anybody could possibly believe that having the category is POV advocacy, but deleting it isn't. Support move to transgender inclusion, but let's keep the debate on the topic at hand. Bearcat 04:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completely agree, FWIW. These are hardly "POV" groupings, and it is worrying that people seem to think so. James F. (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm with bearcat. Transfer to Category:Gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender people. Anything else, such as deleting the category entirely, can be discussed after this vote is concluded. -Seth Mahoney 05:51, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm, good spot. I'm much a fan of the Oxford comma, but it was after midnight when I wrote that ;-). James F. (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be and transgender, not or - you can be both LGB and transgender; the or would be misleading. Also, the point is that it belongs together, or sets it apart. -- AlexR 08:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• So, Category: Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people, then? -Seth Mahoney 21:01, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
• "And" sounds to me like "everybody in this category is all of the above". Bearcat 06:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Either we include the T in the GLBT, or we clean up the subcats. The best (and probably easiest) way of proceeding is to make it inclusive and move it to describe GLBT. Dysprosia 06:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Seth Mahoney's exact proposal on the category name (with the commas as per the MOS). Agree with Bearcat's comments. Jonathunder 06:20, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
• Delete. Same reason as the prior CfD, which by the way has nothing at all to do with homophobia. --Kbdank71 15:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. A person's sexual orientation is never irrelevant to an article about them. It is homophobia to believe that it is.

It's not irrelevant? Please, then, point me to the "Straight people" category. Or is it only relevant if you're Gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered? --Kbdank71 16:29, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, "straight" is kinda default, and therefore not really a necessary cat. LGBT* people are a minority, and therefore it makes more sense to cat only those. -- AlexR 08:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with a "Straight people" category if you think there is a need for one. But have you ever heard of a teenager who didn't know any straight people and was wondering if they might be straight so they looked in Wikipedia for a list of straight people? --Samuel Wantman 08:37, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a category not a list and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a clinic. Oliver Chettle 14:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying people as heterosexual is inherent in references to their spouses and children, for one thing. Heterosexuality doesn't need a special flag to point it out; it's already the default assumption about anybody who isn't specifically noted as not heterosexual. Bearcat 06:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Deleting the category ultimately boils down to believing that it's less POV to kowtow to other people's homophobia than it is to identify gay people as gay, which is absolutely indefensible. It is homophobia to believe that a person's sexual orientation needs to be hidden at all costs.

If that's why you vote to delete categories, that's your business. My reasons are my own, and by the way, you're wrong. As for keeping sexual orientation hidden, that's a load of crap. You want to point out someone is gay, I have no problem putting it in the article. But even then, there should be a good reason for it, otherwise every article about every person would start, "So-and-so, who is gay/straight/whatever..." --Kbdank71 16:29, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. If somebody is added to the category in error, the solution is to remove them, not to erase the whole category. It's no different than if a town in Ohio were mistakenly added to Category:Communities in Wyoming. It doesn't invalidate the category; it simply means somebody was added in error. It is homophobia to suggest that identifying gay people as gay is any different than identifying towns in Ohio as towns in Ohio.

Go read the first few lines from the homophobia article. You don't know me from Adam, and yet you are making assumptions that I'm homophobic. Now if all you wanted to do is berate me for my vote, then hey, you're doing a great job. If you wanted to possibly change my mind by coherently bringing up valid points from your side of the discussion, you're failing miserably. --Kbdank71 16:29, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hah. Right. If you think I don't know anything about what homophobia is, you're making uninformed assumptions about me, too. Bearcat 06:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Being a town and being in Ohio are the two primary characteristics of a town in Ohio. The same does not apply to this category. Only a tiny fraction of the articles are about people who are notable because of their sexuality. Oliver Chettle 14:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable because of sexuality" is not a necessary precondition to list someone in an LGBT category; being notable and being of that sexuality, as two facts both true and yet independent of each other, is entirely sufficient. Bearcat 06:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Want I should keep going? Bearcat 16:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, not really. I just wanted to vote, not get beat about the head by the homophobia stick. Wrongly, I might add. --Kbdank71 16:29, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Reason given in prior CfD:

This "information" is often suspect and very often irrelevant. It doesn't deserve this prominence. It is not disseminated in a spirit of neutrality but rather in a spirit of activism.

The criteria established for this set of categories was that:

1. The person's sexuality must have influenced their life in some notable way.

2. The person's sexuality, and its relation to their work, must be mentioned in the article - no randomly adding the tag to an article that has no mention of their sexuality.

3. We don't get to go very far back in history, due to questions about the relevance of attributing modern concepts of sexuality to premodern people.

I think this pretty well covers the 'suspect' and 'irrelevant' parts of the complaint.

As far as prominence, a tag at the bottom of a page hardly counts as prominent. Further, articles on Alan Turing, Simone de Beauvoir, and Quentin Crisp are hardly complete without mention of their sexuality. And, as pointed out elsewhere, gay and lesbian scholarship is becoming mainstream. This information is relevant and useful to some people. As far as the spirit in which it is disseminated, look, it doesn't matter why someone adds content. What matters is what they add. Instead of attacking the people who add content, why not question the validity of the content its self? To do otherwise is POV. -Seth Mahoney 16:16, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Seth, thank you. That's what I was looking for. I'll take your comments into consideration before the vote ends. --Kbdank71 16:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as suggested - as Seth points out, GLBT studies are growing in prominence and it's useful for scholarship purposes, especially under the criteria listed, where a person's sexuality particularly informs his or her actions. Minor point though: shouldn't it be "transgendered people" instead of "transgender people"? --khaosworks 02:06, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

• You're probably right. "Transgendered people" is used throughout Transgender. -Seth Mahoney 02:51, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

• I personally delete the -ed from transgendered whenever I encounter it (if I edit anyway), but transgendered exists. However, I see no reason to promote that -ed myself; we use gay and not gayed etc, so why transgendered? It's something you are and not something you are made. Google too shows slightly more "transgender people" (136,000] than "transgendered people" (121,000), so I think we should stick to that one. -- AlexR 08:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this category. Do not delete it. CDThieme
• Is this intended to only serve as a parent category for specific subcategories, or is the subject of an article going to be effectively "classified" as "either gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered"? That's really not all that informative. I'm all for inclusiveness, but that's the semantic equivalent of placing Bill Clinton in Category:U.S. Presidents, Senators, or Chief Justices. Yes, there are common issues of gender/sexuality, but it's not such a singular group that it works as a en masse classification. I say delete especially if renamed as proposed above, but delete even if not, because I adhere to the position that sexual orientation is not an encyclopedic classification for individuals any more than one's race or religion. I strongly resent the attempt to throw insults of homophobia into this. It is a wholly ignorant assumption that if you're oppose a LGBT category, you must be against LGBT people in general. Postdlf 16:54, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that the issue of whether or not to use specific categories for specific types of people is up in the air. The categories Category:Gay writers, Category:Lesbian writers, Category:Bisexual writers, and Category:Transgender and transsexual writers do exist, and I'd personally like to see all appropriate categories follow this model. But a whole host of them were just deleted (if I read that discussion correctly), so who knows? Regardless, I appreciate your feelings on the subject of the encyclopedia-ness of someone's sexual orientation, but the following facts do remain:

1. For some people, their sexual orientation is not only appropriate but necessary in an article about them. Examples include Quentin Crisp, Harvey Milk, and Alan Turing.

2. Gay and lesbian scholarship is something people are doing, and if we are working on this encyclopedia as a reference, then (among other changes, like heavy documentation of articles and always citing references) this sort of categorization is useful. I've always seen categories as a way of indexing articles for easier lookup, not as a way of saying "this is such and such", and to me adding Category: Gay writers to Quentin Crisp makes sense for that reason. Likewise with Category: LGBT rights activists for Harvey Milk. The fact is that Quentin Crisp was a gay writer and Harvey Milk was a gay rights activist, but to me categorizing them as such isn't so much a matter of making the article this or that, but rendering it more accessible to those that are interested in this sort of research.

So, I don't know if you're arguing for the removal of all GLBT people categories, but if you are I hope you'll reconsider, because there are very good reasons for including at least some of them. -Seth Mahoney 20:54, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep for all the reasons already mentioned by Bearcat and others and another which I believe is very important: It is a useful category. Is there a legitimate reason why someone would want to see this list? I can think of several, but the most important one is for all the teenagers wondering about their orientation who do not know any LGBT people and have no source of information other than what they can find on the internet. I became a teenager in 1969 and reading the articles about all the people on the list would have made my life quite a bit easier. I also believe it is up to each minority to determine how they want to be classified and IF they want to be classified. If African-Americans found it offensive to have African-American categories I'd want those views given the most weight. I don't think anyone will be able to convince me that there is no use for the category, and I, as a gay Wikipedian feel strongly that it should exist. I don't care if it is LGBT or GLBT as long as it exists. (BTW, I think LGBT is the most common term in the LGBT community.) Frankly, I don't understand quite a bit of the enthusiasm many people have for deleting things in Wikipedia. This category takes up a tiny bit of space what is the pressing need to delete it? -- Samuel Wantman 07:56, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, I never understood how the subcats got deleted in such a clandestine vote in the first place. I'd decidedly vote for an undelete there. -- AlexR 08:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind that this vote is to move the page, not to delete the page. Dysprosia 09:03, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I support a Rename. -- Samuel Wantman 23:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I meant this to apply generally to this vote. Dysprosia 13:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Created purely as propaganda. Accuracy highly suspicious. Often irrelevant. Oliver Chettle 14:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Heh, looks like you can't quite pay attention to what is going on just above this vote, eh, Oliver? Nonetheless, the accuracy isn't actually in question, nor is the relevancy, so long as the guidelines above are kept. As far as being created purely as propaganda, that's been covered above too. This is one slight irritation I have with the Wikipedia voting process: Its a lot like American politics. Anyone can come in at any moment and say whatever they want and not back it up without having any clue as to what has gone on before they arrived, and they're still taken seriously. Ah, well. -Seth Mahoney 18:23, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. --Spinboy 16:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in this form and return to an inclusive term as used previously such as "LGBT people", indeed some people tick all four at the same time! Whilst I'm at it, use the acronym rather than a form of the expansion as it would be unwieldly to enter and prone to probable mistyping (and hence loss of linkage). --Vamp:Willow 23:57, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I really don't like these sort of "categorisation of people" categories - and do not see any advantage of grouping gays and bisexuals with transgendereds. It's one thing if the people who will be added to this category are activists in this area - in which case "people" should be replaced with "activists", but it's another if they are famous and well-known for other things and just happen to be gay or bisexual. And even if they are gay and bisexual, who's to say they would welcome being grouped with transgendered, which is different from gay, which is also different from bisexual. For me, the same would go for categorisation by religion, race, sex and preferred football team - unless we can replace "people" with "activist" we shouldn't be using these categories, jguk 07:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Rename as suggested by Seth. Highly useful category for research - and, of course, the aforementioned teenagers. And I think I'd support an undelete of the subcategories. Tobyox 10:37, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep & Rename. I'd mention that it's just bizarre that people have been making "Delete" votes for a proposed renaming action. A deletion action was proposed, and rejected, just two weeks ago. TreyHarris 23:54, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Either keep this category as it is or rename it and undelete the subcategories. Lumping transgender people in with gays and lesbians in a category such as this is often inaccurate. I have known many transgender people who consider themselves straight but are still transgender. One way or another we need a category for GLB people and a cateogry for transgender people. -- Redfarmer 15:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is. --Spinboy 19:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Category:Gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender people --Mike C | talk 10:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates Category:Asia Miles; only article was Dragonair, and only as a legacy. --choster 21:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. Cfd notice added on Apr 8 by User:MisfitToys. --Kbdank71 18:47, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. Cfd notice added on Dec 3 by User:Postdlf. --Kbdank71 16:07, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. (surprise!) Unnecessary subcategorization. There is an appropriately limited Category:Companies based in Utah, and only three of its thirteen articles are restaurants. Even if there were enough restaurants based in Utah, the broadly named present category would include everything that has a franchise there, and I doubt we want McDonald's, for example, to have hundreds of categories for every country and state where one is located. Postdlf 16:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. Cfd notice added on Apr 24 by User:Decumanus. --Kbdank71 15:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The name is a duplicate of Category:Westminster System, but the content seems to be institutions specific to Ireland. Perhaps a more specific title would work. - SimonP 15:57, May 4, 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 14:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. Cfd notice added on Feb 24 by User:Icairns. --Kbdank71 15:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundant with Category:School stubs. -- Lochaber 13:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:55, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This should have been created (by me) as Category:Reptile and amphibian stubs, since that is what it contains. I would therefore like it to be moved there. --Stemonitis 07:22, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• agree with renaming and moving of any content. Grutness...wha? 01:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Content of the category page is "TRIZ".

TRIZ seems to be a Russian management buzzword. The article on TRIZ is very badly written and overinflates its importance (the author had added it to 20 different categories, like "Science", "Skills", "Humans", etc.). I highly doubt that this is deserving of a whole category. RSpeer 03:44, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

• TRIZ seems to be a world management buzzword :-). Agree about some mess in categorisation (it's not easy), but let's discuss each category on-by-one? Maybe category TRIZ should be subcategory of Category:Creativity management? see Overview of Creative Methods, for more arguments --AndriuZ 19:52, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

The listing here is specifically about the category Category:TRIZ. I think there should be a single article on TRIZ (most of the articles that were in Category:TRIZ are not about TRIZ at all), and therefore the category should not exist. RSpeer 20:01, May 4, 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 15:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two articles listed in this category, and seeing how only two of Napoleon's marshals were killed in battle, there is no chance of expansion.*Kat* 03:36, May 4, 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.