< February 18	February 20 >

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 all for clarity. — Feb. 26, '06 [06:04] <freakofnur_xture|>

• Category:AHL Assistant Coaches to Category:American Hockey League assistant coaches
• Category:AHL Head Coaches to Category:American Hockey League head coaches
• Category:AHL players to Category:American Hockey League players
• Category:AHL teams to Category:American Hockey League teams
• Category:AHL trophies and awards to Category:American Hockey League trophies and awards

Much like the recent National Hockey League category renaming ccwaters 19:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all for clarity. This is not a well known league, at least outside America. Calsicol 01:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. Should be spelled out. --Aude (talk | contribs) 03:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. - EurekaLott 05:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. Golfcam 18:58, 20 February 2006 (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. —akghetto ^talk 09:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie User:Oscark mistaken ethnic category for people __earth ^(Talk) 16:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Delete all other empty categories by Oscark. Pavel Vozenilek 20:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom TheGrappler 21:25, 23 February 2006 (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. —akghetto ^talk 09:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete, Category:Towns in Germany already exists. Markussep 16:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Same applies to the similar categories listed below. Honbicot 18:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am not sure but this could be speedy for being so obvious. Pavel Vozenilek 20:14, 20 February 2006 (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. —akghetto ^talk 09:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oscark created it and left it empty. __earth ^(Talk) 16:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this and the other compound categories which follow. Any change to such fundamental categories would need to be agreed in advance. Carina22 18:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Carina22. Postdlf 02:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These are all useful, recognized categories. Just because they haven't been populated yet, is no reason to delete them. Once they are populated, they will be very useful to those doing reasearch on the topics. What do you mean by "Any change to such fundamental categories would need to be agreed in advance?" Is that a dictate or attempt at explaining why you want to delete? Let's reason this out. pat8722 14:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom TheGrappler 21:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even Arts and Humanities article doesn't exist to define the term. There's really low need for suppermassive categories - the info that one may discover looking here would be better described in a article. Pavel Vozenilek 21:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Because they were all placed in Category:Sabah, a state of Malaysia, it looks like all of these were mistaken attempts to create Sabah-specific subcategories. There are a few more such compound empty categories that need to be listed here. Postdlf 19:11, 24 February 2006 (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. —akghetto ^talk 09:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oscark created it and left it empty. __earth ^(Talk) 16:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for reasons as stated at the delete vote on Category:Arts and Humanities. pat8722 14:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: broad to the extreme. No need to add yet another useless top level into categorisation. Pavel Vozenilek 21:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Pavel. Postdlf 19:08, 24 February 2006 (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. —akghetto ^talk 09:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oscark created it and left it empty. __earth ^(Talk) 16:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for reasons as stated at the delete vote on Category:Arts and Humanities. pat8722 14:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom TheGrappler 21:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: broad to the extreme. No need to add yet another useless top level into categorisation. Pavel Vozenilek 21:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Pavel. Postdlf 19:08, 24 February 2006 (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. —akghetto ^talk 03:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty and useless directory __earth ^(Talk) 16:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. GRuban 22:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom TheGrappler 21:25, 23 February 2006 (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. —akghetto ^talk 03:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody created it and left it empty. Weird cat anyway __earth ^(Talk) 16:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 21:40, 23 February 2006 (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. —akghetto ^talk 09:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge duplicate. Mais oui! 13:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/delete/delist Pavel Vozenilek 20:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge.--Historian 00:49, 21 February 2006 (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 as nominated; leave redirect --Kbdank71 14:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should match the agreed title of the article aluminium. There are two companies in the category with "aluminium" in their name and none with "aluminum". Rename Choalbaton 13:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Honbicot 18:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I tolerate, or resigned to, this "only say 'aluminium'" silliness for that article and articles not concerning the US. However many of these are almost certain "aluminum companies" and don't refer to themselves as aluminium companies. (Although if a subsection for American aluminum companies is created I'll withdraw the objection)--T. Anthony 05:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to match article. Tim | meep in my general direction 17:55, 23 February 2006 (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 as nominated --Kbdank71 14:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Capitalization) Kurieeto 21:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 08:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "Pharmaceuticals policies", surely? Grutness...wha? 00:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to singular form as original proposed. This covers the field of pharmaceutical policy and not all the articles concern individual policies. Choalbaton 13:56, 19 February 2006 (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. —akghetto ^talk 03:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be utterly superfluous, given that it has only one article, Crazy_Horse, and that article is alreadly linked from the category's namesake, Dr._Valentine_McGillycuddy. --Vim-Hogar 07:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Apparently created under a misunderstanding of what categories are supposed to be, and unnecessary for any valid grouping of information. Postdlf 08:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Choalbaton 13:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ditto above reasons.--T. Anthony 16:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete one group category? FloNight ^talk 01:08, 21 February 2006 (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 14:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral There are difficulties in determining bisexuality especially as many believe, perhaps wrongly I don't know, that everyone is somewhere on the bisexual spectrum. Also there isn't even a "Category:Bisexual people" at present. Even though that still would have other verifiability problems. (In a related vein see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Actors by religion)--T. Anthony 07:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a verifiable or defining characteristic for actors. Choalbaton 13:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Move to a List. It's information, and Wikipedia is about information. That disputes might arise about who belongs on the page (none have so far) is certainly not a reason to delete an article. Such disputes arise about many wiki articles and are settled on the corresponding discussion pages. Bisexuality is itself a defining characteristic. To subcategorize by occupation is relevant information to those interested, or doing research, on the topic. But I don't see why you shouldn't move the information to a "list", rather than keep it as a "category". pat8722 15:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would bisexuality be a defining characteristic for an actor? It can be part of their image, but then again so can many things. For an example being a dwarf or midget is important to the image of many actors. It's also something people are usually born with. However there is no "Category:Short actors" or "Category:Dwarf Actors." There's also no "Category:Jewish actors" or "Category:Celibate actors". In fact nationality, age, medium, and other occupation is pretty much the only subcats to actors. (The Christian subcat is to be deleted) And there is a List of bisexual people already. Any actors here can be moved to it.--T. Anthony 16:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be a "defining characteristic of an actor", it need only be a "defined characteristic" of public interest which applies to an actor, to qualify for a list. Those interested in, or researching the topic of bisexuality, have a right to the available public information. Just because "you aren't interested in it" or "other categories have been deleted" is no reason to delete an article. Many articles are deleted without consensus (based on a vote count, instead) or without comprehensive discusssion. It serves no public purpose to delete the information, and smacks of censorship. But as I stated, I see no reason not to convert it from a category to a list. pat8722 16:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and listify if you want. Intersection of two unrelated traits, and to my knowledge no one has ever studied bisexual actors as a discrete group of people. Postdlf 18:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Traits don't have to be inherently "related" to eachother to be a relevant subject for study. Just because YOU know of no one who is interested in studying the intersection of bisexuality and acting, doesn't mean "no one should have ready access to that information". As legitimate public information, there is no reason NOT to include it in Wiki. To delete the information would be nothing more than censorship.pat8722 18:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it hasn't already been studied elsewhere, it's not going to be studied here. Wikipedia is not for original research and analysis. And please stop with the absurd "censorship" claims. Postdlf 20:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Wiki just makes facts available, as found in this article; so that anyone interested can use those facts however they want. A succinctly defined list such as this does not constitute editorial "analysis", and it does not constitute "original research" unless the editor obtained his information about who is bisexual by doing personal interviews, stakeouts, making personal deductions, etc, rather than merely documenting the information found in the print media, just as for every other wiki article. You have not shown how the article could be remotely classified as "analysis", nor that even a single entry in the category could even remotely be designated as the result of the editor's "original research", nor have such arguments been attempted on its talk page. No reason for making the information unavailable to the public has been stated, therefore to delete it would be nothing more than censorship. pat8722 20:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Improper and non-standard form of sub-categorisation. Calsicol 01:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you so concluded. pat8722 02:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Verifiability conditions apply to the individual articles. Editors of those articles should and do check for the verifiability of category inclusion. Picking one of the 85 people listed at random, Greta Garbo, there are two paragraphs detailing her sexual habits. Yes the fact that an actor is bisexual is relavant information. Many people are interested in how widespread different sexual preferences are, especially among artistic types which seem to have a higher than average number of LGB people involved. --Salix alba (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, individual unverifable entries can always be removed from this category, and this should be based on self-identification, as per general Wikipedia policy (i.e., even if some people believe that everyone is bisexual, only actors who self-identify as bisexual should be included in the category). Catamorphism 08:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Irrelevant information. Honbicot 18:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Every time I look at this page there is another biased category set up by the gay rights lobby on it. I wish more folks would help to deal with this problem. Golfcam 18:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And every time I look at this page, there's another absurd claim that any gay-related categorization whatsoever constitutes POV, while wanting it removed is somehow "objective" (which it ain't). I wish more folks would help to deal with that problem. Bearcat 19:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The actuality here is that Category:LGBT actors — which does objectively meet the criterion of being a topic of encyclopedic notability in its own right — is broken down into L, G, B and T subcats, and only people whose sexuality is actually ambiguous as to which subcategory they belong in are supposed to be filed directly in Category:LGBT actors. There's not much argument to be had in favour of trashing the bisexual subcategory but leaving the others intact, so keep unless you're genuinely proposing that the entire category be reorganized (which, in fact, I'd still oppose as making the parent category too unnecessarily large.) Bearcat 19:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After doing this that entered my mind. Can I withdraw the nomination? I don't think nominating it was precisely a bad idea as I think discussion on this was needed. However I think it's going to get "no concensus" and might devolve into unuseful sniping soon. (If it hasn't already)--T. Anthony 04:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, verification problem, not a defining category, maintenance headache. A list that contains details allowing verification and is closely guarded may be useful. Pavel Vozenilek 20:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is no more subject to verification problems than any other wiki articles. Disputes about individual entries can be made on the talk page, none has. The details are in the listed articles, have you looked? Bisexuality and actors are clearly defined/defining terms, what do you mean by "defining category"? pat8722 21:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That two things are defined terms doesn't mean their intersection works as a category. "Agnostic" is a defined term and so is "dentist." Hence we have Category:Agnostics and Category:Dentists. To have a Category:Agnostic dentists would be silly. That said I no longer think this intersection is that random, but that both terms are defined doesn't make the intersection a valid category. It also doesn't mean you can verify much of these personal things. Likely many actors were bisexual and we'll never know it.--T. Anthony 04:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Bearcat. -- Samuel Wantman 21:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We deleted the murderers/serial killer categories based on non-connective grounds, and there's nothing connecting homosexuality to acting ability, so let's be uniform in our CfD. Just for the record, I was in favor of keeping the serial killer categories, and I'm actually in favor of keeping this one as well, but since the majority feels that any LGBT categories need scientific connections in order to be valid, I'm merely proposing that we stick to that proposal. Anthony Hit me up... 22:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Scientific connection" isn't really the defining matter — it's about whether evidence exists that the topic is already established as a topic of cultural or sociological interest. The sexual orientation of actors has a clearly established cultural context to it; the sexual orientation of murderers doesn't. Bearcat 23:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, neither one of us is going to convince the other one. I'm sorry, but I firmly believe in what I'm saying. I think the serial killer cat should have stayed, and if it had survived CfD I would have voted Keep for this one, but since it was deleted, I'm merely suggesting we enforce that reasoning throughout the entire Wikipedia. I fail to see what the sexual orientation of actors has to do with their acting ability or anything else, so unless you can prove your "clearly established cultural context", I'm going to stick with my Delete vote. Anthony Hit me up... 01:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except that there's a difference between being convinced of your position because your position reflects actual policy in the matter, and being convinced of your position despite actual policy in the matter. Nobody has to prove that sexual orientation has an inherent relationship to acting ability — what has to be proven is that the sexual orientation of entertainers is something a large number of people want to know about, and something they actively seek out information about. And, well, that's a documentable and utterly indisputable fact. There is not, however, any documentable evidence that the sexual orientation of serial killers is a topic of interest to anybody who isn't a paranoid the-fags-are-coming-in-black-helicopters-to-kill-me whack job.

But, at any rate, for the cultural context of LGBT actors, it wouldn't be that hard to summarize: Hays Code. The Celluloid Closet. James Dean. Rock Hudson. The role of homophobia in keeping actors in the closet. The religious right's reaction to Ellen DeGeneres. Straight actors who play gay roles still feeling the need to reassure their admiring public of their heterosexuality, while gay actors playing straight roles face this weird "but will anybody believe them?" double standard. And on, and so forth. There's a lot of meaty encyclopedic material in there; that's just an off-the-top-of-my-head summary. Bearcat 05:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• T. Anthony, just because an error has been made once, or even a million times, is no reason to make it again. The more complete the information in wiki, the better, whether it can be contrued negatively or positively or not, is irrelevant, so I would probably vote to bring back the deleted category you mention, too. I suggest you work towards the solution of finding a way to bring the many improperly deleted categories/articles back, and a process that requires a fair hearing before deletions are made (i.e. longer notice period for the proposal (30 days would be reasonable, not every one logs on to wiki every 5 days, or has unlimited time to spend on it), mandatory prediscussion on talk pages (to try to salvage the article if possible), longer time for the vote/discussion on deletion - what's the rush, 100's of days go into article creation, and they are deleted after only 5 days "notice of discussion"...). Right now, the whole deletion process is unfairly skewed towards improper, biased, and arbitrary deletions, as the history of wiki, and this discussion page, shows. pat8722 12:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are responding to a user named Anthony and he is not the same as I, I'm T. Anthony. The T stands for Thomas, but I'm not in the mood to change my handle to clarify that. Anyway I'm too tired to do what you have to do to withdraw this, and I'm not sure I remember how anyway, but I would withdraw. That said my reason were not solely that there's no connection between bisexuality and acting. That was part of it, but another issue is I'm not sure "Bisexual actor" is an important subset of actors or for that matter bisexuals. I think there are alliances and organizations for gay actors, but I'm not sure anything specific to bisexual actors is a historical phenomenon. Also bisexuality does strike me as a vaguer less clearcut thing. It is part of the acronym though and there is a Category:Bisexual community so the idea this is just out there unrelated to much was ill-informed on my part. I'm still not entirely sure this is justified, but there you go. I withdraw the delete vote if I made one and go for neutral instead.--T. Anthony 04:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep None of the problems are of the essence of the category, and the solutions above resolve them. NOTE: I found the comment about the "gay rights lobby" unseemly. Will we be complaining about the Zionist lobby next? Haiduc 23:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bisexuality is a current social phenomena. Public persona of actors makes it a legitamate consideration. But criteria must be defined. Problems with WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:RS inevitable. Also cross-cultural and historical problems. These issues make it difficult for the average WP user to apply. FloNight ^talk 01:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "criteria must be defined"? If problems with individual entries arise, they can be dealt with on the talk page. The talk page indicates no disputes have yet arisen. What do you mean by "cross-cultural and historical problems". What do you mean by an average WP user to "apply"? Let's try to come to a consensus.pat8722

As you can see from my comment, I'm not totally against the Category:Bisexual actors. For practical reasons, I don't think the category is working on WP now. The use of categories related to sexuality are controversial and can be seen as inflammatory by some people. This means greater care needs to be taken when developing them. There should be good inclusion criteria set out so all interested users understand why a person is placed in the category. Currently, the category page doesn't give an user any guidence about when to use the category. Looking through the articles, I found many didn't mention that the person was/is bisexual in the text. They contained no references that state the person's sexual orientation/lifestyle. I have other thoughts on historical and cultural problems with using the category. I'll put those on the talk page of the category. That said, I would change my support to keep if these problems are fixed. I would even help fix them. We need to do it ASAP. FloNight ^talk 05:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggested some inclusion criteria on Category talk:Bisexual actors page. Willing to see if inclusion criteria makes this a usable category. FloNight ^talk 15:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is not a major characteristic affecting an actor's work or career. Carina22 18:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a major characteristic. All that is necessary is that the intersection of the two is a topic of interest, which it is, or the article wouldn't have been created. That YOU aren't interested in the subject is no reason to deprive interested persons of ready access to this information. To delete is censorship. pat8722 20:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Improper and non-standard sub-cat. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A mere allegation is not useful in helping us come to a consensus. A consensus is not a vote tally. In what way do you believe it is "improper and non-standard"? Are you suggesting the information should be moved to a list, or lost? Let's work towards a consensus.pat8722 20:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pat, you could make a list article at any time from any category, with or without CFD voter support, because CFD doesn't determine whether articles live or die, AFD does. Make a list if you like. Postdlf 23:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The goal of Wikipedia should be accuracy, not repeating rumors that have no verification or no evidence. How is that information? Several of the people on the list are admitted homosexuals, not bisexuals, so it's incorrect to begin with. Others have been the subject of rumors that "crop up" years and years after their death with nothing but a badly researched book with anonymous sources (i.e., Hector Arce's book on Tyrone Power, which not only has anonymous sources, but statements about what Tyrone Power thought when he was alone. Was Arce hidden in the wall? How is this book to be taken as accurate?) The Power rumors only started after the publication of that book, 21 years after his death, and each and every reference made to Power's bisexuality has been published after 1979. Remove this category or only list people who have themselves admitted to bisexual activity or have had verified sexual relations with the same sex (i.e., Megan Mullaly, Greta Garbo, Bianca Jagger, Marlene Dietrich, Marlon Brando). Verified by love letters, explicit photographs, home films, their last will and testament, diaries, personal papers, their own statements, film studio documents. We know from the Oprah debacle with "A Million Little Pieces" that the last thing an author or publisher cares about is accuracy. Saying I had Elvis' baby in a book doesn't make it so.Chandler75 16:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This comment illustrates a common misunderstanding about categories. Categories in Wikipedia are a grouping of articles RELATED to a subject. It is also, sometimes, a means of classifying articles. It is both of these. It is not purely a classification system. To illustrate what I am saying, I was recently involved trying to moderate an NPOV debate about Matthew Shepherd. Some editors were claiming that his death should not be in Category:Hate crimes because the perpetrators were not convicted of a hate crime under Wyoming statute. The murder was notable for creating quite a bit of discussion about the hate crime issue, and led to debate in congress about a national hate crime bill. As a legal technically, Matthew's death was not a hate crime, but his murder was definitely related to the subject of hate crimes, and thus should be in the category. If someones sexuality is mentioned in their article, that warrants inclusion in a sexuality category. I would be more than in favor of making these distinctions clear at the top of each category page, and perhaps even renaming the categories to reflect this. In general the litmus test for including an article in a category is if the article discusses the category. If we have to prove the validity of each member of a category to the leval of certainty that would survive a court challange, we would be wasting our time, and not making categories any more useful. Someone researching the subject of bisexual actors would find it useful if Tyrone Power was in the category. Reading his article, he would see the claim of bisexuality and the counter claims. This is as it should be. -- Samuel Wantman 18:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about doing so to the point of meeting a court challenge. It's about this actually being a good-faith effort to have a category of bisexuals who act. If anyone where the rumor is interesting "and therefore it's useful" is to be added it's nonsense. There are numerous rumors of people being secretly Jewish or black or Catholic or what have you. Should Christopher Columbus be in Category:Jews? There are those who indicate he's Jewish.--T. Anthony 11:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that these issues are to be decided in each article. I've heard about the possibility of Columbus being Jewish. If there is significant discussion of this in the article, the discussion is well cited, and there is consensus of the editors that this section is valid and important, then there should be a categorization of this information. If Category:Jews is defined to include people who may have been Jewish, than he belongs. Perhaps there is a better category, like Category:People who may have been Jewish. -- Samuel Wantman 08:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep it is the responsibility of editors to only place verified bisexual actors in this category, any unverified ones should be removed. Tim | meep in my general direction 17:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment directly above. I wrote it to counter a "delete" vote, but it is just as relevant to this "keep" vote. -- Samuel Wantman 18:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Highly inflammatory, and I don't see the usefulness in naming people because of rumors. If you are going to included "rumored" bisexuals, you should include everyone. Why just a select few? Then the subject of bisexual actors should be on the pages of those "outed" only in books, since there is no regard for verification, i.e., Errol Flynn, Myrna Loy, Mary Martin, Julie Andrews, Carol Burnett, Gary Cooper, Ronald Colman, Basil Rathbone, Lili Damita, Robert Taylor, Barbara Stanwyck, David Niven, Janet Gaynor, Katharine Hepburn et al. It makes Wikipedia look as sensationalistic and tabloid as everything else, and if this is what you want to do, make a full commitment to it.Lorrobhen 04:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep only include people who have personally said they had homosexual as well as heterosexual feelings. For people in the past where evidence strongly points to the person being bisexual but was not able to be open about it at the time due to it being illegal create a new cat ot list (or sublist in list of bisexuals) of deceased people reputed to be bisexual with citations. Arniep 23:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The category is not relevant to the acting career. It is also highly inflammatory, since whether an actor was or wasn't bi-sexual is subject to debate. Being able to cite a source doesn't make an allegation true, anyway, since not everything published is true and sources vary. It is sad to see that some posters are so intent on proving that an actor was bi-sexual that they allow a page to become mostly about the actor's possible sexual orientation than about their career. The rumors begin to completely overshadow an actor's work. Wikipedia is becoming less of an encyclopedia and more of a rag sheet, due to the desire of some people to include rumors.

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 oppose rename. —akghetto ^talk 09:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— category name is misspelled. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 06:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This looks like a perfectly valid British English spelling to me. (PS: Your sig takes up nearly 3 lines on my hi-res screen.) -Splash^talk 03:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks fine to me, too. Grutness...wha? 00:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Fine as it is. Choalbaton 13:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: regardless of name {{categoryTOC}} is missing. Pavel Vozenilek 20:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, reverted changes. See User talk:CyberSkull#Renaming templates for reasons (against policy to change spelling like that). Added {{categoryTOC}}. ··gracefool |☺ 03:45, 21 February 2006 (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. —akghetto ^talk 03:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Unneeded ubercategory. delete. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia categories needs a list of general animal names. Or widely recognized animals. Currently there is no such list in categories. --Go for it! 04:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We shouldn't create categories just to undo the separation of subcategorization, and this one really lacks a clear unifying concept. Postdlf 08:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Deciding which animal names are "general" or "widely recognised" is an impossible and divisive task. This category serves no useful purpose. --Stemonitis 08:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC
• Delete Vague categorisation when scientific categorisation does exist. I do not even see value in list of such names - for what? Pavel Vozenilek 20:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Before looking I expected to find things like Fido or Spot that are common names for animals. If it's kept, maybe it should be renamed to something like "Common names of animal species", as that seems closer to the intended purpose. I'm not sure what Bacteria is doing on both the list and category, tho. Mairi 01:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The use of scientific names in the category system is a problem, but this isn't going to work. I guess people will just have to use the search box. Carina22 18:17, 21 February 2006 (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:United States media by market --Kbdank71 14:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. The misleadingly-titled "Regional media" category was recently merged into Category:Media by city. The category's creator, apparently upset by the merger, has removed all the U.S. cities from the category and placed them in the equally misleading "Media by United States region". - EurekaLott 01:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (reject name change) Yes, here we go again. The category was deleted without reflecting the actual discussion that was in progress. See deletion log. There were two comments in the category for deletion. The first said that it should be in the form of _______ by region rather than Regional ______. Then we got into a discussion of what the best title would be. I changed my opinion to rename to Category:Media by United States regionand nobody had anything to say on this. My wikistress level just went up a notch because the CFD nomination was incorrectly and prematurely adjudicated. Further, you refused to discuss this on a talk page first. After slapping a CFD label on my category, you considered the name change a fait accompli and moved all the articles over to your nominated new name. Maybe we should go to third party opinion on this. To change gears and consider the change, I will give my opinion on the name change as follows:

• Many of the articles currently under Category:Media by United States region would technically not be under media by city.
  • Category: Mass media in the San Francisco Bay Area includes non-San fran cities in the East Bay, non-San fran cities in the South Bay , non-San fran cities in the San Francisco Peninsula , and non-San fran cities in the North Bay (San Francisco Bay Area). The San Fran media article and category deals with a region and not a city.
  • Media in Richmond, Virginia discusses media in the Greater Richmond Region that encompasses independent cities as well as surrounding 16 counties. The Richmond media article deals with a region and not a city.
  • Media in Minneapolis-St. Paul and Broadcast Media in Kansas City serve Metropolitan Statistical Areas that bridge two states. These are not single cities.These media articles deal with a region and not a city.

The proposed category ignores these differences and pretends that these regional entites neatly fit into the incorrect definition of city.

Let's actually discuss this. MPS 02:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you did not accuse the closing admin or me of violating guidelines. If you would be kind enough to check the edit histories, you would find that I did not recategorize any of the articles in question. Also, it would be wise if you ceased referring to Wikipedia content as "yours". This is a collaborative project, and none of us have reason to expect ownership of our contributions. - EurekaLott

Given that the category is defined as This category lists the mass media according to cities, metropolitan areas, and other regions in the United States, maybe merging into the correct entries in Category:United States media by state is the best choice. Vegaswikian 06:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EurekaLott, I did not mean to accuse you but found it very annoying that the categories were undergoing recat before the vote was done. As for adjudication, I do think that it was adjudicated incorectly since there was no consensus and the discussion was still on the floor. With all due respect you have not commented on any of my discussion points. I am not out to "win" here but to find a reasonable resolution.

Vegaswikian, Good idea... hmm.. but some "cities" like Washington DC (DC, Maryland, Virginia) and Kansas City(Kansas, Missouri) and Chicagoland(Illinois, Indiana) and NYC(New York, New Jersey) cross state borders. In that case, would we just categorize , say, Kansas city under both Kansas and Missouri? MPS 18:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could see those listed under both state categories. This is likely a case where there may not be a perfect solution. Vegaswikian 02:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MPS, I do not want to debate the prior cfm discussion, because the entire procedure was carried out by the books. I don't know why you insist on stating otherwise. The only improper action was yours, in ignoring the outcome of the process and creating this unfortunately-named category. I'm sorry you feel I did not adequately address your concerns the last time around. Allow me to try again. The goal of categorization should be to help users find articles using as clear a name as possible. To most people, the concept of cities and metropolitan areas are interchangeable. Nearly all American media outlets serve more than one municipality, but they typically are centered around one. This is why every single article in this "regional" category has a city name in its title. Users will not find any information about regions in this category. Categories should help users, not confuse them. A good parallel example here can be found in the sports categories. Minneapolis-St. Paul is not a single city, yet Category:Twin Cities sports is included in Category:Sports in the United States by city. The Angels play in Anaheim, yet Category:Anaheim Angels is listed under Category:Los Angeles sports. The same logic applies to media, and that's why Category:United States media by city is the most appropriate name for this category. - EurekaLott 05:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Howzabout this: instead of getting into a pissing match about "region" vs. "city", how about Category:United States media by market, or something to that effect? The Bay Area obviously isn't a single city, but it's not really legitimate to have separate parent categories for media markets defined by a single city vs. media markets defined by an agglomeration of multiple cities. So split the difference and call it "markets", which is the more usual term in a media context anyway. Bearcat 19:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for us to just make up our own original research on urban planning terms. We need some sort of objective third party set of terminology or else we will go back and forth arguing whose POV is better. US census bureau uses MSAs. Vegaswikian's example of using states is another official way to file it. IS there an official breakdown of US media markets, by some national assoaciation nof advertisers? I Will google this. MPS 19:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go. radio-media.com and nielson media. Nielsen Media is a pretty good reference for media markets. MPS 20:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Category:United States media by market if we use the 200 or so neilson categories. MPS 21:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• See similar voting in the past: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_9#Category:Regional_media_to_Category:Media_by_city. Seems to go in circles. No opinion from me. Pavel Vozenilek 20:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:United States media by market isn't ideal, because it doesn't fit as neatly in the existing category hierarchy. However, it would be a significant improvement. I could live with it. - EurekaLott 02:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, it seems like we have come to the consensus that the category Category:Media by United States region should be renamed Category:United States media by market. I would recommend that we each register concurrence with this so we can close this CFD out. MPS 15:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur MPS 15:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No vote right now. Does anyone have a link to see what area these media markets cover? I need to understand exactly what the impact is. If I understand my area correctly, the broadcast markets do not always may sense or reflect reality but are based on historical decisions. Vegaswikian 18:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1] MPS 19:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That link is less then usless. It does not explain in any way what areas are covered in the market. It is my understanding that the Las Vegas market does not include the parts of Clark County, where Vegas is, that are included in a Utah market. It also does not explain which other states are covered in the Las Vegas market. Without that level of detail available, we are being asked to use a market area that is not defined. I suspect that it is covered somewhere, I just have not been able to find where that is. Vegaswikian 23:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FCC uses DMA as market definition for cable description of each DMA Wikipedia's article on DMAs From these links it looks like DMAs are the NPOV standard for media market definition, even by the federal government. I don't know that we're gonna get maps, but it seems you can tell which market is which according to the television stations (and other media outlets) listed within each market. MPS 14:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vegas DMA is defined by tv.backchannelmedia.com as

• KINC (Univision (SI))
• KBLR (TELEMUNDO (HBC))
• KFBT (Independent) KLAS (CBS)
• KVWB (WB)
• KTNV (ABC)
• KVBC (NBC)
• KVVU (Fox)
• KTUDCA UPN 25 (UPN LP
• KELVLP (KELV-LP) (Telefutura LP)
• K41CQ (PaxTV LP)

Does this look right to you Vegaswikian? MPS 18:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, List of television stations in North America by media market shows:

Broadcast television stations in the Las Vegas market  (Nielsen DMA #48)
KVBC 3 (NBC) - KVVU 5 (Fox) - KLAS 8 (CBS) - KLVX 10 (PBS) - KTNV 13 (ABC) - KINC 15 (UNV) - KEEN 17 (A1) - KHDF 19 (Azteca America) - KVWB 21 (WB) - KTUD 25 (UPN) - KELV-LP 27 (TFR) - KNBX-LP 31 (MTV2) - KFBT 33 (IND) - KYRK-LP 35 (IND) - KBLR 39 (TMD) - KGNG-LP 47 (HSN) - KLSV-LP 50 (IND) - K57FA 57 (TBN) - KVPX-LP 59 (Azteca America) - KTVY 63 (ImaginAsian) - K67GB 67 (Daystar)

MPS 18:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, for the simple reason that none of those sources define the area. If I were to simply use that list, then Boulder City would not be in the Las Vegas region definition since there is not TV station there. Likewise for Bullhead City, Arizona]] which I believe is included in the Las Vegas DMA. Many of the government reported data include Bullhead City in the Las Vegas reporting area. I'm looking for something that shows the area of the DMA. Likewise, are the 210 DMAs the best choice? Why not use the 286 ADIs? We need something that clearly displays the area included in the whatever solution is selected. I know you have tried to find this, as have I, but so far we have not uncovered it. Vegaswikian 20:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonsai! Go to the DMA maps at www.truckads.com Here is Vegas I think this is what you were asking for. What are ADIs? AFAIK, DMAs are divided/apportioned by county, so there may be anomalies on cities on borders between two counties. MPS 20:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that seems to be the only site that defines the areas. So with a clear easy to find map of the areas included I can support your proposal. I may not like the definitions, but that's a different issue. The DAIs are area of dominant influence as defined by Arbitron. Vegaswikian 22:37, 23 February 2006 (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 14:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These kind of categories aren't a good idea, especially when you consider how many separate music charts there are by genre in the US alone. We recently deleted a similar category for artists with No. 1 singles in Australia, which is arguably more notable, so there is a precedent. JW 01:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Choalbaton 13:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both categories, since both Rhythmic Top 40 and Hot Dance Airplay are considered official charts in Billboard magazine, so listing the artists who appeared on both charts does make it valid as a reference tool. Robert Moore 13:43, 21 February 2006 (PST)

• There are hundreds of these charts worldwide. There's not necessarily any harm in having a list, but to use US chart placings as a category scheme is misguided. JW 22:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Well I can understand your reason, but they can both be renamed if you have have an issue with using Billboard in the reference, if that what you're trying to get at. Either way even if both articles are deleted the categories can be brought back by others. Robert Moore 17:05 21 February 2006 (PST)

• • • It's not the name, it's the fact that it's not really a good basis for a category. We don't have a category for artists who have reached No. 1 in the US, the UK, or anywhere else. But we have categories for those who have got into the top 40 in a couple of US sub-charts. They're not that notable. It's also pretty much unmaintainable. JW 23:32, 22 February 2006 (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.