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 Merge Category:Firearms companies into Category:Firearms manufacturers -- Rick Block (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category of which information is already covered in Category:Firearms companies. Hurricane111 23:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Firearms manufacturers might be a more appropriate title, and seems to be the most common form at Category:Manufacturing companies. - SimonP 16:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge into Category:Firearms manufacturers, which sounds better and is the more common form. Carina22 17:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge as per SimonP and Carina22 Honbicot 12:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 18:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Oaklanders → Category:People from Oakland (redirect already exists) Category:People from Oakland, California
• Category:San Diegans → Category:People from San Diego (redirect already exists) Category:People from San Diego, California
• Category:San Franciscans → Category:People from San Francisco (redirect already exists) Category:People from San Francisco, California
• Category:Pasadenans → Category:People from Pasadena Category:People from Pasadena, California
• Category:Bakersfieldians → Category:People from Bakersfield Category:People from Bakersfield, California
• Category:Fresnans → Category:People from Fresno Category:People from Fresno, California
• Category:Sacramentans → Category:People from Sacramento Category:People from Sacramento, California

Proper naming convention. Every category in Category:People by U.S. state follows this pattern. I've got California covered here, but there's a whole ton in Category:American people by city that should be done too. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Added more clarity to the desired category names. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 16:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur. Radiant_>|< 00:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nearly all categories for people by city follow this pattern. it less sterile, shorter and no less convenient, and if you don't happen in a moment to know what the adjective form is, spend three seconds and check the page Category: People from California orCategory:American people by city, get it and learn something. -Mayumashu 02:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Use names which are clear to everyone, not just locals. CalJW 06:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Figure-out-able adjectives have a place in Wikipedia. The Tom 08:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering you just used the non-existent adjective "figure-out-able", I don't think you'd be a good judge on what adjectives people are usually familiar with. For instance, "Fresnan" gets less googles than "Fresnian" and "Fresner", and about equally much as "Fresnoan". And "Bakersfielder" gets only slightly less than "Bakersfieldian". Looks like the inhabitants don't know which adjective to use, either. Radiant_>|< 10:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

are you sure you looked at your results carefully? if you use the four you mention 'Fresnan', 'Fresnoan', 'Fresner', and 'Fresian' in the plural form to avoid mere adjectival use and get use of the demomynic form you get, for English use, 557 hits for 'Fresnans' and 62 hits for 'Fresnoans'. not one of the first page of 191 hits for 'Fresners' referred to people of the city, so presumably few actually do. 'Fresians' gets 50 hits. Fresnan is nine to one the most prevalent word in use. 'Bakersfieldians' get 425 hits to 'Bakerfielders' 55, again nine to one. -Mayumashu 15:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I used the base form, i.e. the singular. Radiant_>|< 23:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you figured out what I meant, though, right? The Tom 17:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

using the base form will bring up a lot of adjectival use of the word and not just demomynic use. its better to check plural use -Mayumashu 16:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - The current names are fine STopCat 18:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Every people have the right to determine their own collective name, this is especially relevant in Wikipedia when the name is clear and understandable. It is also less sterile.Reggaedelgado 20:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - and move Category:People from Los Angeles to Category:Angelenos. Gentgeen 19:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have thought it was "Los Angelenos." See, there's no agreement even among the people who live there. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Support. Every people do in fact have the right to determine their own collective name, sure, but what is the point of putting it in an encyclopedia if nobody else knows what it means. Fresnans? You must be joking. If I hadn't read that here I would have no idea what that meant. This is a global encyclopedia, not only for people from California. And please don't give me the grand google test. Google has more results for supercalifragilistic than all of the fresnan spellings put together. Will anyone on earth by confused by "People from Fresno"? How about "Fresnans"? Make the change. --Kbdank71 20:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Mayumashu and others do have a point, but what about for cities that don't have such a name for the locals? I live in Thousand Oaks, California -- there's no term "Thousand Oakians" or anything. So then we've got a number of categories that are Category:People from some city and others that are Category:Somecitians. Consistency in naming is a much better goal here. I know that people in countries are usually "Fooian people" but for countries, absence of a demonym is uncommon; for cities it's very common. Does "New Yorker" describe someone from the state or from New York City? Is it "Londoner" or "Londonite"? If I'm doing new page patrol and having to look up the proper category every time, it just takes that much longer to do. Besides, every U.S. state follows the "People from XXX" pattern. Does it make sense that some cities do and some don't? --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. i ll admit that there are certain cities, particularly lesser known ones, and the occasional big one like NYC that should have "people from foo" names. i think the rule of thumb should be that where possible go with the shorter, less sterile name so long as there is at least a search turns out that the demomyn is used twice as much as the next possible one. i don t buy the argument that non-locals don t know what to call it - take a few seconds if it s already been done on wikip (go to the page, than the supra-cat for the city) or a few minutes and determine it. but care should be taken to check - a UK-specific yahoo search for Londoners gets a 1,110,000 hits and Londonites 355 so i don t see the controversy there. "Angelenos" gets nearly 300, 000 hits to "los angelenos" 's 40, 000 (minus "Joel" to eliminate the song), better than 5:1. and yes, "supracalifragilistic..." turns up a lot of hits cause the movie, song and especially the word is a curiosity with kids especially, is often cited when one what to say the longest word they know, etc. etc. and what does this have to do with finding our ratios? -Mayumashu 04:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Much more consistent, and will make much more sense to people who don't already know the terminology for each city. The purpose of Category names is to allow easy navigability to the ignorant but curious, not to show off how cool your local nicknames are. My advice would be to list it by "People of X", and then to say on the category page what the most common one-word name(s) for those people are, so you convey all the same information that the categories have now but avoid all the confusion that the categories have now. -Silence 04:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Per Silence. --Vizcarra 18:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per Silence Carina22 19:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support especially as the terms are not even all agreed on by locals. Bhoeble 12:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. these cities are well-known outside Cally - no need to use such long, drawn out names here -222.230.74.228 07:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The cities might be well-known (and I would argue that Fresno, Bakersfield and Pasadena are lesser known), but IMHO clarity is much more important than "colorfulness". howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:53, 28 November 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 rename to Category:AT&T --Kbdank71 18:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The merger was approved and finalized today. And SBC is now officially no more. AT&T does not have it's own category, but SBC does. With the SBC name going away, a category with that name doesn't make a lot of sense. But with the new name, "AT&T Corp", it makes sense (to me at least) to move all of the entries from the SBC directory over to a new directory with the name of the new combined company. - TexasAndroid 22:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Osomec 14:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Carina22 20:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support J. Nguyen 00:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Name of category should be renamed "AT&T, Inc" instead of "AT&T Corp" so it is the same as the official name of the combined company [[Hypernick1980 06:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)]][reply]
• Support to make sure the main change goes through. Nominate again if it needs refinement. Osomec 14:15, 28 November 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 Rename -- Rick Block (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Film' has been established as the proper word to use when referring to such media on Wikipedia. Apostrophe 20:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: having looked at the various categories, Film certainly seems to be used, but perhaps it would be helpful to people if you could show where it's been established that film is the word that is used? (It's fine by me, but it strikes me as a British/American difference). --G Rutter 10:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Film, for starters. Movie redirects to there. --Apostrophe 17:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with film over movie, I think it is a UK/USA difference mainly (though Bollywood uses the term film rather than movie I think)AllanHainey 12:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support CalJW 17:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --G Rutter 20:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus -- Rick Block (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. 'Music' does not have nationalities, people do. -Mayumashu 16:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, prefer the existing standard. How does music have a country any more than a nationality? Christopher Parham (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

music does not have a country, countries have music - nationality however is originally a legal term that refers to a person's country as a matter of the person's legal status. it is no mere coincidence that, as User:Radiant points out, nearly all non-people cats have been named by country, not nationality. -Mayumashu 03:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted below, we've been using the word "nationality" elsewhere in category titles to mean "national character," not just "person legally entitled to hold passport from the state of Fooland." Provided that a category's contents are named in the format "Nationality X", what we're saying is that X has the normative and intangible characteristics of said nationality, even if it isn't physically located in the patch of ground associated with the government that uses the same nationality terminology with reference to its citizens. This is why Category:Literature by nationality, Category:Architecture by nationality and several others use nationality rather than country: Finnegans Wake is Irish lit even though Joyce hadn't set foot in Ireland for decades at the time of its composition. Swan Lake is still Russian when performed by an American ballet company in London. Thai food is still Thai when served at a restaurant in Alabama, but chicken-fried steak served in Bangkok isn't. The Tom 19:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

but the contents of cats listed by country are not devoid of national character (necessary) either, as the word "country", able to act as a synomyn for nation, can be easily taken to connote "national character". the point is with "country" you keep what pages are meant to be put under the cat conveniently vague to be include both, say, people who reside and contribute to the character of a place despite their nationality and you can also keep the list of what people with what nationality are doing what. but i ll admit this kind of dual-purpose catting does not seem to be what the majority here prefer. -Mayumashu 02:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Most categories other than for people go by country. Radiant_>|< 00:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nationality most certainly can apply to things other than people. Merriam-Webster sayeth 1. National character The Tom 01:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sounds more natural. Osomec 14:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, current name is consistent with Nationality music naming convention for subcats (rather than Music of Country). -- Rick Block (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Rick Baker, The Tom & Christopher Parham. Valiantis 14:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as per proposer. AllanHainey 16:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support reflects the way articles are organised. Carina22 20:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as you can have a "nationality" of music in different countries. Arniep 23:38, 25 November 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 20:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are we really going to add this category to everyone who has an undergraduate education? This category would apply to hundreds of thousands of articles. - SimonP 15:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete -Mayumashu 15:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Radiant_>|< 00:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: If anything, these should be handled by lists. Joshbaumgartner 07:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Carina22 17:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even Ph.D. holders would not be sufficiently notable for tht alone. Way too many B.A. holders. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; unnecessary, unencyclopedic and not even all that interesting as a point of commonality between people. Bearcat 03:37, 24 November 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 keep --Kbdank71 15:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to shorter name using commonly used adjective form of word Adelaide. -Mayumashu 15:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. People putting articles into categories who are unfamiliar with the term will have a hard time figuring it out. Much better to stick to a common naming convention "People from XXX" instead. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Object, such adjectives are generally unknown in other countries, and using them would instill miscategorization. Radiant_>|< 00:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment. what 's also unknown to users is whether the cat name is "Native of Foo" (typically British), "People from Foo" (typically North American), and "People of Foo" (typically Australian) used for cats for countries in other continents. there is no standard form in reality outside of one s continent with English and the time it takes for say a European to know which of the above three is the correct form for an American or any place is no longer than what it takes to check the Pasadena, California page, go to its category page and from it get the name of the cat, Category:Pasadenans (all of five seconds). -Mayumashu 02:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose These things should all stay as they are. CalJW 06:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- I've lived there and never called it that myself. It just doesn't work for all towns or cities. - Longhair 08:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Carina22 17:54, 19 November 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 keep --Kbdank71 15:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to shorter name using commonly used adjective form of word Melbourne. -Mayumashu 15:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. People putting articles into categories who are unfamiliar with the term will have a hard time figuring it out. Much better to stick to a common naming convention "People from XXX" instead. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Object, such adjectives are generally unknown in other countries, and using them would instill miscategorization. Radiant_>|< 00:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment. it is not that difficult to find out what these adjective forms are and hey you learn something by doing it and isn t that the point. -Mayumashu 02:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose These things should all stay as they are. CalJW 06:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Longhair | [[User talk:Longhair|Talk]] 08:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that "Melbournian" gets more googles than "Melburnian". Apparently people don't really know which is the correct adjective. Radiant_>|< 10:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well, you re wrong again but i ll admit the numbers are a bit too close for comfort - "Melburnians" gets 58, 700 hits and "Melbournians" 32,300 with some going to describe people of Melbourne, Florida, so say 2:1 for Melburnians, the proposed name -Mayumashu 16:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Term isn't even consistent. Carina22 17:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Howcheng. --Vizcarra 00:29, 20 November 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 merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Overcat. Only one article (Ice-9) which is also in the more appropriate Category:Fictional materials. Delete. Radiant_>|< 12:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it's just not fully populated yet wtih existing articles. 132.205.93.33 19:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such as what? Ice-9 isn't even water, technically speaking. Radiant_>|< 00:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ice-9 is a form of ice, ice is a phase of water, solid water. 132.205.44.134 06:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's lots of fictional/mythological waters, geologic springs with mystical properties, etc. 132.205.44.134 06:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• But almost none of those things merit articles. And the correct form in that case would be "fictional liquids", not "fictional water(s)", which sounds bizarre and awkward. But the point is, all such articles can simply be put under the "Fictional materials" category for now, because there's plenty of room for them there! Categories like this should be made in response to a desperate need for more categorization to take some of the load off of bloated categories, not just for the hell of it. -Silence 04:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Items in this list can be listed under Fictional materials instead. -Silence 21:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.-- JJay 00:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does have anything meaningful. What next African-Italian criminals? 71.35.229.17 04:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We don't need this category. NatusRoma 06:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is pov to only maintain positive LGBT categories, but if you make a group nomination of all LGBT categories I will support it. CalJW 11:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a meaningful intersection. Radiant_>|< 12:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:Radiant!. There is nothing inherently "POV" about not having a way to sort articles. Placing an article in categories can sometimes lead to POV disputes, however, and there is no need to suggest that that there is something about being LBGT that connects to criminality. Cateogy:LGBT and Category:Criminals can coexist as identifiers in one article without being merged like this. Jkelly 00:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. a useful reference - the category combines infamy for having been a criminal with notoriety in the form of many people's fascination with LGBTism. -Mayumashu 02:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep useful. Carina22 17:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep STopCat 18:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Why does this category have such strong support, while Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_criminals has almost unanimous "delete" votes? There's something fishy about this... -Silence 21:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For starters there doesn't seem to be enough here to differentiate from criminals in general. Okay I can see Cunanin and especially Alig. I'll grant that. However Squeaky Fromme? I didn't even know she was LGBT and I don't see how it relates to her crimes at all. Added to that there aren't that many names here. I think placing some of these in Category:Child sex offenders and others in Category:Rapists wouldn't screw up those Categories. Those that can't can be under general murderers or whatever crime is appropriate.--T. Anthony 07:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Edited content)--T. Anthony 07:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A useful resource, and a useful antidote to all politically correct people Wikiluva 08:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE this is this users only contribution on this account. Arniep 23:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I take offense to that. I have a long-abiding hatred for excess political correctness on Wikipedia, and continue to fight it today. My vote is based purely on establishing consistency with dozens of other similar VfDs in the past weeks and months. Being a homosexual and being a criminal are totally unrelated concepts, therefore having a category linking the two is, according to most editors involved in the matter, incorrect. The same applies to being a Jew and being a criminal, being a circus clown and being a criminal, and being Brazilian and being a criminal. It is POV to draw correlations where there are none. At best, a "homosexuality and crime" article could list these people as examples, where relevant, as an article or list could do a vastly better job of establishing context and detail than a category, which by nature can't have any details on the individual entries. -Silence 13:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Ditto. I'm not being PC as much as I don't see the point of this category. Do we have Category:Polygamous criminals or Category:Celibate criminals? Existing sex crime categories seem sufficient for any LGBT specific crimes. For others I don't see the point.--T. Anthony 14:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As legitimate as most of these categories. Osomec 14:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am quite surprised that no one has noticed that this category is essentially meaningless as gays have lived in many countries around the world which have vastly varying laws. Arniep 20:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• An excellent point. In many countries, being homo/bi/transsexual is illegal, so "LGBT criminals" would be like saying "monotheistic theists". By whose standards of legality do we decide who is or isn't a "criminal"? If it's by the standards of the specific country people live in, then the category's meaningless, since nationality/sexual orientation should be what we're concerned with, not 'criminality' (i.e. "LGBT Arabs" is much more useful and specific than "LGBT criminals"). And if it's just "being considered a criminal anywhere", then the category's still meaningless as all LGBT people qualify: instead of having a distinct category, just make all LGBT categories a subcategory of Category:Criminals. Much simpler. -Silence 20:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Otherwise, you'd logically have to include everyone in Category:People imprisoned or executed for homosexuality - RachelBrown 22:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Intensely Strong delete per T. Anthony and Arniep and comments from Silence below. While I hate these types of categories, this really sickened me. The underlying philosophy seems to be: let's find some homosexual serial killers and then add anyone who may have had a same-sex experience and may have committed a crime that may or may not have involved homosexuality. The Derek Laud article does not mention that he is gay and his only apparent crime is drunk driving. Putting him in the same category as serial killers is an attack. For Aileen Wuornos, based on the article, the only LGBT connection I can find is an unproven claim of sexual abuse by her grandmother. Or Robert Garrow, was he a married father and rapist of children and women, or the victim of an abusive homosexual relationship and the rapist of women and children? These issues should be dealt with on the bio pages, not in a cut-and-dried category or list that will have to be constantly policed and that provides no useful information. --JJay 01:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Week keep. But with understanding that this list is not for LGBT folks who just happened to have committed some crime, but only for people who are specifically notable as criminals (gangsters, murderers, art thiefs, etc). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC) Sorry, Arniep, I'm still not convinced this cat can't be kept appropriately narrowly focused... obviously I don't want some homophobic dumping ground, but it doesn't seem to be now.[reply]

• So you think people listed here should have to be especially severe criminal acts... and especially severe homosexuals/bisexuals/transsexuals? ... Do you see the problem yet? If the people in this category are noteworthy criminals, they should clearly be included in Category:Criminals, but why should their being LGBT be grouped with their criminal behavior, as though the two were directly linked? How does this category have any more value than Category:Criminals with red hair or Category:Left-handed criminals or Category:Black criminals or Category:LGBT dentists or Category:LGBT drug addicts or Category:LGBT racists?
• Instead of overcategorization like this, people should just use boolean searches to find every individual that appears in both the LGBT and Criminal categories. Perhaps someday Wikipedia will even have a way to directly search for every entry that appears in both categories, negating any need whatsoever for combination-categories like this, even the ones where there is a correlation between the two things being combined, or ones created for the sake of shrinking a bloated category somewhat (neither of which are in any way true for "LGBT criminals", which is both a connection as arbitrary as List of Jewish criminals and a category too short to benefit either LGBT or Criminal categories).
• Note also that this is the only subcategory in Category:Criminals that refers to a specific group followed by "criminals", rather than to either a specific type of crime (which makes perfect sense because there are many very different crimes, significant to a criminal category ) or a specific nationality of the criminal (which makes perfect sense because what is "criminal" varies widely from country to country, based on differing laws)! Just look at the list of subcategories: "Arsonists, Art thieves, Bank robbers, Burglars, Bushrangers, Child killers, Child sex offenders, Confidence tricksters, Counterfeiters, Criminals who committed suicide, Cyber criminals, Drug lords, Drug traffickers, Extortioners, Fraudsters, Highwaymen, Hijackers, LGBT criminals, Mafiosi, Murderers, Outlaws, Perjurors, Rapists, Smuggers, Spies, Terrorists, White House intruders". The painfully obvious, and painfully POV, conclusion that is being strongly suggested by this categorization: being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transsexual is criminal, or performing a homosexual act is criminal, or at the very least homosexuals and transsexuals tend to be criminals especially often or in especially noteworthy ways. Our categorization system should not promote such disputable POVs—nor ones that are simply false (which is the real reason I object to this category: not because what it suggests is offensive or non-PC, but because it's a blatant and unfair distortion of reality that can only lead to a skewed, one-sided understanding of the vitally important issues involved). The proper place for information like this (if anywhere) is in the numerous articles related to homosexuality's history, legality, social perception, etc., where proper context and sourcing can be given to such claims. The proper place is decidedly not a category. -Silence 02:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well said. --JJay 03:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There are subcategories of Category:Criminals by nationality. The LGBT subcat could be given a sort key so that it appears next to this "by nationality" subcat (I've done this) rather than intermixed with the bulk of the subcats which are by-crime. For those of you with intensely strong delete feelings about this category, would you also delete category:LGBT actors or any of the other by-occupation categories that are subcats of Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people? I'm not sure I see the fundamental difference. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Since I'm the only editor that has voted, I must assume you are referring to me. The answer to your question is Yes, I would delete them all consider this. Since you single out category:LGBT actors, I would point out that of the 18 articles included in the category, ten make absolutely no mention of anything related to LGBT. These include: Stephanie Bellars, Lisa_Boyle, Merritt Butrick, Dan_Dailey, Rory Jennings, Tamie Sheffield, Amy Weber, Jackie Woodburne, Max Wright, Lauren Lee Smith (although the article informs me that she has played a lesbian). Of the remaining eight, six relate to porn stars- many married with children- four of whom seem to be included based strictly on their "acting": Ashlyn Gere, Rakel Liekki, Tera Patrick, Krystal Steal. That leaves two articles, of which Christopher Parker looks to be here due to rumours published in The Sun newspaper that he is gay. In short, the 18 articles may or may not qualify for inclusion, but as the editors of all these articles do not feel that the issue is even worth discussing, I fail to see why the category exists because it tells me nothing. --JJay 20:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Agreed - I can't see any fundamental difference between, say, category:American criminals or, say, category:LGBT actors. All Wikipedia categories are, to some extent, arbitrary. This is not mathematics we are dealing with here. A particular 'joint' category doesn't imply any greater or less correlation between the individual categories than any other joint category - compare say category:Vegetarian saints with say category:LGBT criminals— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shojo (talk • contribs) 19:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• If you can't see a fundamental difference between "American criminals" and "LGBT criminals", then you don't seem to comprehend the very meaning of the word "criminal". What is "criminal" is based on what is and isn't legal. What is legal is based on the laws of a specific country. Thus, what country you live in is often a major factor in a person's criminality, as being a criminal can change entirely based on what country you're living in. However, note the difference between distinguishing by nationality and distinguishing by race. While the former is entirely appropriate because criminality shifts based on place, the latter is entirely inappropriate. A racial criminal category would be a much better equivalent to this category; "Brown-skinned criminals", for example. -Silence 23:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You misquoted me (I must assume) in order to enable you to make your point once again that 'criminal' is not an absolute term. But I'm the first to agree that we are here dealing with fuzzy terminology and fuzzy categories. Note my remarks that This is not mathematics we are dealing with here, and also that a particular 'joint' category doesn't imply any greater or less correlation between the individual categories than any other joint category--luke 05:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Shojo, I see you contribute to Derek Laud. Do you feel his previous inclusion within this category is justified based on a drunk-driving conviction? --JJay 20:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JJay, I'm in regular touch with someone who lost his brother through a reckless drunk driver, and then lost his mother because she couldn't stand the anguish of having her first son killed. I don't believe the word 'justified' is appropriate to use because it means different things to different people. If you ask should Derek Laud ever have possibly been included in this category based on a conviction some years ago, then I suppose it depends on the actual circumstances of the incident - even though it may not be related to his being gay. I just think that categories should be treated with caution, like all information on Wikipedia--luke 06:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for your response. You are right, of course, drunk driving is a horrible crime. I had two friends killed very young by drunk drivers. I don't know the details about Derek Laud- I asked because a few days ago he was in this category- but even so, I'm not sure that he could or should be ranked with serial killers or child rapists. I agree with you that categories should be treated with caution, it's the underlying reason for my participation in this debate. I guess we just don't see things the same way with this category. Take care. --JJay 08:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How many times are you planning to vote? Honbicot 12:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Once, that is why I use comment to precede other remarks. As I don't think you are suggesting I vote again, I will strike out references to voting from these comments that may have caused confusion for you or others. --JJay 17:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not any kind of gay activists, I'm thinking more on the unworkability of this. Because you can look at this from many angles and it's still awkward. If one believes homosexuality is a sin then other "sexual sinnner"/criminals should also have a crime category at some point. There is bound to be more criminals who could be placed in Category:Adulterous criminals and Category:Promiscuous criminals then here. Likewise if it's a community then other communities should also be here. Like Category:Basque criminals, Category:Lutheran criminals, and Category:Vegetarian criminals. If it is just something you are born with then Category:Deaf criminals or Category:Dwarf criminals. Best to close the door on silliness in general. If you want balance for negative maybe try something with LGBT prostitutes or Nazis.(Although that second is probably a very bad idea)--T. Anthony 08:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is a difference, gay people have lived in many different countries with different laws so this category is pointless. All criminal lists are pretty meaningless imo because laws have changed considerably over time and are different in every country, they should only exist by exact crime committed in my opinion and certainly not be tied to ethnicity or sexuality unless directly relevant i.e. Italian American mobsters but not Gay drunk drivers. Arniep 23:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for as long as all the other LGBT people categories are kept. This nomination is just PC, which wikipedia is reasonably free of, though it isn't free of activism. Honbicot 12:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

this nomination is nothing to do with PC, any criminal category which is not specific to a country era or crime is utterly pointless and non encyclopedic. Arniep 13:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my case this isn't true at all. I'd vote to delete a Category:WASP criminals and Category:Republican criminals just as easily. I think I might be for deleting Category:LGBT rights opposition as well because it seems agenda driven.--T. Anthony 04:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And I say that because I don't think there is even a general Category:Civil Rights opposition or Category:Human rights opposition.--T. Anthony 04:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I've read through the comments and looked at the category. I asked myself, "Is this category useful?", "Is the topic studied in academia?" I can't answer "yes" to either in the category's current form. I thought that the category might contain people convicted for being LGBT, but it doesn't appear to be that. The fact that these criminals are LGBT seems to be incidental to some of their crime (though sometimes related to who was the criminals' choice of victim.) If the category were defined well enough so that I could answer yes to both questions, then I'd change my vote to keep. I suspect that defining this category well would mean renaming it as well, so therefore I think the thing to do is delete it, and perhaps a clearly defined and useful version can be resurrected with a better name. -- Samuel Wantman 10:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• "I thought that the category might contain people convicted for being LGBT, but it doesn't appear to be that" - The category you're thinking of exists at Category:People imprisoned or executed for homosexuality (though it doesn't include bisexuals and transsexuals, presumably because the number of such people is much smaller; that could be something to change or expand on). For obvious reasons, it's a much more NPOV, encyclopedic, and useful category than just "list of criminals who happen to also be homo/bi/transsexuals".
• Also, I don't think it's possible to create a category that effectively deals with this topic, because it's too complex and contentious and varied; what might be possible is a list or article, on the other hand, or a new section for one of the many already-existing articles dealing with LGBT and legality. A list or article would be the only way to cite and provide the proper information for each entry to explain the exact relationship of the person's sexual orientation and the crime he committed—though I expect that even such a list would be likely to be deleted if not handled extraordinarily well, considering that List of Jewish criminals was recently deleted with over 20 "delete" votes. -Silence 17:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Meaningless category. Is Oscar Wilde in the category? He was convicted of a crime and served a prison sentence, but he is not regarded as a criminal now. - Poetlister 22:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if there are enough articles for people noted for being L, G, B, or T criminals, not just who are L, G, B, or T and criminals (that is, if there is a guy known as the "gay bank robber" out there, he goes in - a guy who is gay and robs banks doesn't). I'm fine with this category, so long as it follows the same rules the other LGBT-people categories follow: they have to be noted for being an LGBT x, not just LGBT and x; and this has to be explained in the article. -Seth Mahoney 23:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sethmahoney states my thoughts exactly. I just added a description to the category page to try to clarify this. Please feel free to improve my explanation. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, neither POV pushers, nor vandalism, nor troll targets ever give a page a reason to delete. Hopefully this cat will only be used on pages where we know they're LGBT, but when it's not, then revert it. There are people interested in LGBT, and in fact I only just heard of this cat, yet it's already proved somewhat interesting. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 00:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Question to you, and all the other keep-voters: would you have voted to keep List of Jewish criminals at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_criminals? -Silence 01:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If I was on the keep side I wouldn't answer that question. There is no perfect equity here, nor will it ever be attained. Witness current voting on List of African-Americans and List of white people, both on AfD. I don't see any need for those voting keep- many of whom have stated reasons for the utility of this category- to pass a theoretical vetting process for perceived hypocrisy or lack thereof. -- JJay 02:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• OK I am removing people from the cat whose crime is not specifically to do with homosexuality, I added Armin Meiwes. Arniep 02:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The working consensus at Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality is strongly geared toward allowing categories of this type if the particular combination of personal category and occupation creates a distinct and identifiable cultural context of its own. For example, Category:LGBT writers is valid, because LGBT literature is a distinct and encyclopedic topic in its own right. Category:Gay linguists, on the other hand, is not valid, because there isn't a comparable phenomenon of gay linguistics. A Wikipedia article on "gay crime" could never be anything more than a raw list of people. People whose crime was directly related to sexuality already have Category:People imprisoned or executed for homosexuality, so filing them here as well is simply duplication; other than that, there simply isn't an encyclopedic article to be had on gay crime as a distinct phenomenon from the heterosexual kind. Accordingly, I have to call this one a delete. (Tangentially, we're really trying to wrap the consensus discussion up; could any interested parties please go review and give feedback on the tentative policy?) Bearcat 03:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This category serves no useful purpose and any attempt to make it serve one would involve deleting it and starting again anyway. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 09:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I did a little thinking about this last night. These people were criminals not because they were gay but, because they killed people. They are no different to heterosexual killers and should be filed with them, unless, somehow, there has been an a new crime of homicide by someone who had homosexual sex without me noticing. Arniep 13:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Men who rape and murder other men because they're gay definitely need a category. There's one for child killers and what's the difference? Golfcam 15:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nobody rapes or murders someone because they are gay. That's a ridiculous POV. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 15:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think Golfcam meant murderers who pick on gay people only, but presumably that would also include heterosexual people so wouldn't fit with the lgbt category title, it would have to be people who kill gay people or something like that. Arniep 17:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is one of two things: either blatant homophobia (if the men doing the raping and murdering are gay) or a total misunderstanding of what the category name means in the first place (if the victims are the gay ones). And I can't tell from Golfcam's tone which it is. Either way, it's a misfire of a vote. Bearcat 18:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yeh, maybe Golfcam misread the cat as killers of LGBT people or something, the vote is pretty invalid whatever. Anyway categorizing criminality by sexuality could get very stupid, i.e. Category:Homosexuals who killed Homosexuals, Category:Heterosexuals who killed Homosexuals, Category:Homosexuals who killed Heterosexuals, Category:Homosexuals who killed Transsexuals, Category:Transsexuals who killed Homosexuals, Category:Gay Dwarfs who killed Transvestites etc. Arniep 19:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The vote has to count, even if the reason given doesn't work. Wikipedia isn't a democracy. We can't assume what the voter meant by his remark and thus discount the vote. That wouldn't be fair. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to the admin who processes the list which votes they count, personally I wouldn't count their vote as the user has voted for a different category, would we count a vote for a speedy frivolous delete on Musicians in Turkey if a user thought it meant a bird? Arniep 14:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete any positive or negative career by sexuality where the two are unrelated --TimPope 17:50, 24 November 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 withdrawn --Kbdank71 20:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal is for some minor changes to cleanup the Ship by country listings per a lot of the CfDs that have already been passed in recent weeks:

• Category:Ships of Argentina:
  • Category:Aircraft carriers of Argentina: merge back into parent, only has two articles, not likely to grow.
  • Category:Cruisers of Argentina: keep, has four articles under it ultimately.
    • Category:World War II cruisers of Argentina: merge back into parent Category:Cruisers of Argentina (add Category:World War II cruisers to articles.)
  • Category:World War II ships of Argentina: delete as superfluous path to Category:World War II cruisers of Argentina.
  • Category:Icebreakers of Argentina: merge back into parent Category:Ships of Argentina, only one article, can be recreated if more Argentine icebreakers warrant articles in the future.
• Category:Ships of Australia:
  • Category:Australian ferries: Rename Category:Ferries of Australia (5 articles)
  • Category:Royal Australian Navy ships: Over 200 articles, needs to be broken into sub-categories. For searches purely by name, List of ships of the Royal Australian Navy is appropriate.
  • Category:Submarines of Australia: Keep, only one article currently, but many uncategorized (at least as subs) Australian submarine articles currently exist.
• Category:Ships of Brazil:
  • Category:Brazilian Navy ships: merge into parent Category:Ships of Brazil, only 3 articles. Total Brazilian ship articles come to six, thus not needing sub-categorization.
  • Category:Brazilian Navy submarines: merge into parent Category:Ships of Brazil, only 2 articles.
• Category:Ships of China:
  • Category:Submarines of China: merge into Category:People's Liberation Army Navy submarines under Category:Naval ships of China, currently is superfluous to have so many decendants for one submarine article.
  • Category:Submarines of the People's Republic of China: merge into Category:People's Liberation Army Navy submarines as above.
  • Category:People's Liberation Army Navy submarine classes: merge into Category:People's Liberation Army Navy submarines, as a seperate category for classes is not necessary with this few articles.

Joshbaumgartner 03:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose all parts that are based on the idea that categories with only two or three articles are not legitimate. Accurate categorisation should be preferred. CalJW 11:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC) Amended Oppose all. Nominate separately. CalJW 05:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thus I would assume you would keep Category:Aircraft carriers of Argentina, as it has two articles (representing the sum of such ships). But what about Category:Icebreakers of Argentina, which has only one article, and frankly even if it had two would not really warrant categorization as such beyond Category:Ships of Argentina. As for the Brazilian Navy categories, it is also not solely based on article quantity. If we keep them, Category:Brazilian Navy submarines should be under Category:Brazilian Navy ships, and then the only sub to Category:Ships of Brazil would be Category:Brazilian Navy ships. For the significance of the category, it seems over-doing it to have so much vertical categorization for a group of articles that really don't need it. Just interested to get your input/clarification on these... Joshbaumgartner 15:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking people to consider too many issues at once. I don't want to swap essays. Please nominate them one at a time. In the meantime, I have change my vote to "oppose all" on the grounds that if this sort of nomination is acceptable people might get all sorts of things through by including them in diverse nominations that were just to much trouble for others to look into thoroughly. CalJW 05:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with that, but the reason I presented these as a group, was because the same problem happened when a large number were presented as individual line items. A number of people had suggested that these be grouped. However, my tendency is to agree with you, so if others agree, I'll split this up into seperate line items. Joshbaumgartner 07:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do a high proportion of those nominations myself, but not for such varied collections of categories. CalJW 16:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. There is a point at which over-segmentation reduces the usability of the category system, and I think these ones have reached it. - SimonP 18:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose All - As per CalJW. These really should be separate nominations. So many different things going on, you're asking for chaos the moment someone wants to support some, and oppose others. TexasAndroid 17:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all or nominate separately as per CalJW STopCat 18:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn per above comments, items will be presented seperately for vote. Joshbaumgartner 04:41, 21 November 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 Keep -- Rick Block (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep all WP:POINT nominations by User:Arniep. Radiant_>|< 12:06, 18 November 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.