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 28 June 2005 17:31 (UTC)

This was created by User:Zondor to go on Template:This and Template:Otheruses. After some people complained on his userpage, he added a cfd tag without listing it here. It is a rather long category name for something that probably is not helped with categorisation. Hence, delete. JFW | T@lk 22:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Long name and superfluous. mat334 | talk 23:57, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mystifying, ugly, and useless. Bill 11:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Indeed, it doesn't seem to be a particularly useful category, although interesting. 207.103.47.100 12:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Long name, superfluous and ugly, there is the Category:Disambiguation instead. 500LL 19:04, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Long name, superfluous, ugly, mystifying, and useless. Did I miss anything? --Kbdank71 20:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 20:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• what an absolute stupid category. who does this guy think he is? delete!!! -- Zondor 19:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The category serves no useful purpose. Instead typical usage of {{otheruses}} places it as the first, and implicitly most important, category when the fact that a name has other uses is one of the least useful things to categorize. --Allen3 ^talk 22:17, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- I think that this is a curiosity which applies so broadly to so many topics that it would be cumbersome to make accurate. I honestly don't see a day when I'd pause to wonder if I could find more article names which are also broadly used. It's a concept that just doesn't seem useful or interesting. I think it would save future effort to stop this idea now. "A" for effort, but that effort is better spent elsewhere. -- Sy / ^(talk) 02:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• See also: Category:Articles currently being edited -- Zondor 06:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 17:38 (UTC)

Category is duplicated by Category:House of Bourbon. No distinction between the two is apparent. Nigosh 22:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Confusing name, too. Could as easily refer to Isabella II of Spain or Jim Beam. Grutness...wha? 01:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redirect (or make a sub-cat) of Category:Whiskies. SchmuckyTheCat 02:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Grutness. Radiant_>|< 15:09, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The drink is covered under Category:Whiskies, and the family is represented by Category:House of Bourbon. --Kbdank71 19:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 20:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 02:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)

Emptied, duplicate of Category:United States painters. Could be speedied.--Jyril 19:24, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --Kbdank71 20:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 20:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this and delete non-standard Category:United States painters. CalJW 16:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 17:36 (UTC)

Small, unlikely to be expanded much. Suggest merging with parent Category:Slashdot. Radiant_>|< 12:33, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge as suggested by Radiant. Pavel Vozenilek 18:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as suggested. James F. (talk) 20:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Otherwise, merge. Kaibabsquirrel 05:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 17:33 (UTC)

I propose that this be renamed Category:House of Yi, since it was meant to hold both former and present members of the royal house. The Yi Dynasty, aka Joseon Dynasty, is 95 years dead, but the royal house arguably lives on (many post-royal members of the house are listed in the category). Since at some point we will need a Category:Joseon dynasty, specifically for the historical period, it would be desirable to move this to a less ambiguous name. -- Visviva 09:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Rename as per Visvia. Firestorm 16:40, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 20:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 17:29 (UTC)

Merge into Category:Korean royalty, with which it is hopelessly redundant, and delete. -- Visviva 09:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge as suggested. James F. (talk) 20:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 17:28 (UTC)

The user that submitted this and I have come to a consensus on what to do about this, which is compatible with the votes of four of the seven editors that voted (by my count) and I suspect would be acceptable to the other editors if asked.. If anyone wants to keep voting, I won't stop them, but I thought it would be best to end the debate, which got quite messy.

I have hidden the debate, though it is still visible in edit mode. If someone wants to continue voting, they can un-hide it by removing the <!-- funny brackets like these at both ends of the voting-->

The consensus was that this should be renamed "LGBT-related laws" and expanded to include laws from both sides.

Again, I know this is not standard procedure, so if anyone wants to reopen voting, I'll understand.

Dave (talk) 11:50, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Dave and I, Noitall, successfully resolved all issues by this debate. It is now an NPOV term similar to Category:Family_law. The discussion here was a broader discussion that included Category:LGBT rights opposition and the additional categories entered. One of my cercerns was labeling people (not legislation) with a biased one-sided not-objective POV determined by only a small group of editors with a POV. This concern was resolved as to the new LGBT-related laws. But if it is maintained within its higher-level category Category:LGBT rights opposition and that category continues to list people, then not much has been resolved. I believe that all legitimate NPOV purposes are accomplished with the new LGBT-related laws and that Category:LGBT rights opposition should be deleted. --Noitall 13:26, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain, for reasons outlined elsewhere. --Kbdank71 20:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Extemely POV as to opinion and as to title. Implies that people or groups are against or for “rights” or against any class of people. In fact, the creators are pushing certain POV politics, and this is their criteria. They have no NPOV determination as to who gets on here. And if this is allowed, then NPOV policies open it up to the universe of political possition possibilities. Category:Anti-gay rights legislation and Category:LGBT rights opposition are entirely POV – in fact, they are as bad as it gets because they are intentionally POV. Closed minds probably cannot see this all POV category for what it is. User:Noitall created other categories here as the other side to the same POV coin. --Noitall 04:21, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, this category lists the Federal Marriage Amendment as an example of "Anti-gay rights" legislation, but it could just as easily be, and more accurately, since this is its name, "Pro-Marriage" legislation. --Noitall 04:32, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, magnet for heavy dispute, and too POV for a cat. Radiant_>|< 12:33, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Rename: the problem with this is not that it's a bad category (it's useful to have these laws in one place in the encyclopedia) but that the name assumes that what gay people and their allies call "gay rights" are rights in the first place, and so it's POV. Perhaps it could be renamed as something like "laws about LGBTs" and include both sides, or as "anti-LGBT laws" and have its contents remain the same. The problem with calling it "pro-marriage" is that it's only pro-marriage in general if gay marriage is a threat to all marriage, which few (if any) people in favor of gay marriage believe. Dave (talk) 15:16, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Dave is correct in the first part and let me comment on the 2nd part about renaming. There is an infinite number of issues and possibilities that this opens up, and selecting one where a small minority are very passionate is POV. Also, his last statement acknowledges the problem: it only considers the opinions of a few people who have certain political beliefs. --Noitall 16:07, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what issues you're implying that renaming would open up. Could you elaborate? Would you be willing to support changing the name of the category to "Anti-LGBT laws" or "LGBT-related laws" or something similar? Dave (talk) 16:19, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Calling a pig a horse does not make it a horse. No, Dave is correct as to the first part, "that the name assumes that what gay people and their allies call "gay rights" are rights in the first place, and so it's POV". Renaming will not keep this from being a POV pig. --Noitall 19:04, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• My preference is to delete based on the previous statement. The alternative for renaming would be the categories "Pro-Traditional Marriage" and "Pro-Gay Marriage." The "rights" part and subcatories with bisexual, transexuals and whatever else is way over the top POV. --Noitall 19:31, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't understand why you oppose the terms "Anti-LGBT Laws" and especially "LGBT-Related Laws;" neither of them uses the term "rights" and the latter doesn't even take a stance on sides. Dave (talk) 20:25, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• I think it's rather daft to think that a law passed to exclude gays from being able to marry is not somehow against gays, but that's beside the point as to whether I think we should delete this category as too problematic. Postdlf 18:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Could you explain why you would oppose a category like "LGBT-Related laws"?

• First, laws would mean laws, not people. But people are the intent of those trying to insert their POV. Also, NPOV would include Marriage-related laws or Family-related laws or any number of infinite possibilities. --Noitall 03:19, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or rename. I agree that the name suggests some bias, but as was said earlier the category is extremely useful, and this is an active area of research for a lot of people. I'd be all for renaming, though, if someone could think of more acceptable names. -Seth Mahoney 22:58, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Rename. Let's be clear hear. The subject of the category may be controversial or POV, but that is definitely not a reason to delete the category. I don't think Wikipedians want to avoid controversy, we want to present it in a NPOV way. It seems clear to me that these articles go together. I would call it "Legislation adversely affecting LGBT civil rights". If people have trouble with "adversely" I would be agreeable to have it part of a larger category "Legislation affecting LGBT civil rights" or "Legislation affecting the LGBT community". Imagine that it is 1840 and the category was "Anti-slavery legislation", certainly a controversial topic at the time. Would we avoid the topic or find the right name for it? -- Samuel Wantman 23:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The hypocracy and POV here is amazing. Spinboy lists himself in the category of gay, lesbian and bisexual people. And of course, he/she/unknown votes for its POV, the LGBZXSDFSDF Rights Opposition and Anti-Gay Rights, but against the same issue, other side of the coin, below. If you haven't figured it out by now, this Wiki category for deletion is an NPOV Rorschach Test --> and more than half of you failed. --Noitall 02:53, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• • • • I seriously hope you consider rescinding your claim that Spinboy cannot contribute to this discussion because of sexual orientation. It borders on a personal attack. And, as has been explained several times (on this page as well as here) there are important differences between the terms "anti-gay rights" and "anti-family" as far as POV is concerned. Your actions are quickly leaving the realm of useful discussion and moving towards disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point.Dave (talk) 03:32, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• I believe that NPOV is an important, even crucial, point of Wiki. Actually, I admire people for admitting their biases on their personal page, such as Spinboy. The rest hide them, ignore obvious POV, accuse someone of making a personal attack, and warn them on their personal talkpage to quit, such as Dave. --Noitall 04:00, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Clever. Dave (talk) 04:07, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

New Names Since the majority is currently in favor of "rename," I thought I'd list the possible new names and see what people thought. Dave (talk) 23:36, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• "Pro-traditional marriage" (suggested by Noitall)
  • I think we can do better than this Dave (talk)
• LGBT-related laws (suggested by Dave)
  • This would include all the laws on both sides without dividing them up into pro-and-con. This is the best option if Anti-LGBT Laws fails Dave (talk) 23:36, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• First, laws would mean laws, not people. But people are the intent of those trying to insert their POV. Also, an NPOV would include Marriage-related laws or Family-related laws --Noitall 02:53, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• • • • What exactly are you trying to prove? There's nothing wrong with a category on say, divorce law, marriage law, custody of children. But if you tried to include Lawrence v. Texas, that would be a big stretch that requires a Jerry Falwell sort of POV. This (and your comment above about the Rorscharch test) make it look as though you are more interested in winning debating points than you are in improving the categories. Dave (talk) 03:32, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
        • For the record, there is already a Category:Family_law. That's a good thing. And the marriage category has a lot of stuff on law. Thus, the categories of "Family Law" and "LGBT-related law" should be about as even-handed as you can get. Somehow, I don't think you'll be convinced, though. Dave (talk) 04:12, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Let me shock you and say that I am partially convinced. What I am not convinced about is that this does not solve the intent of the people who created this category -- see who they put in the category -- it has nothing to do with laws and everything to do with labeling people. If it was the equivalent of Category:Family_law, I would have no objection. --Noitall 04:19, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• There are no people in this category. See Category:Anti-gay rights legislation.
• Oops, let me be more specific. The equivalent would be LBGT Legislation, and if there were no people in it, I would not object. --Noitall 04:41, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Would you object to "LGBT-related legislation" if there were no people? I think it sounds a bit better... Dave (talk) 04:47, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• No objection. Wow, we should hug or something. --Noitall 05:02, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Anti-LGBT laws (suggested by Dave)
  • I think this is the best option. Does anyone disagree? Dave (talk) 23:36, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, then Anti-family laws, Anti-marriage laws. --Noitall 02:53, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• • • • I think everyone can agree that bans exclusively on same-sex sodomy are anti-gay. I think you know full well that there's no such consensus about whether or not preventing two people from marrying is pro-family. Stop disrupting the encyclopedia to make your point. Dave (talk) 03:32, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• You make your first point simply for history, as Lawrence resolved that question for all states. I know of no legislator that has proposed a single anti-sodomy U.S. Constitutional amendment. So, in this view, the category would be absolutely empty. As for your second point, I would say that having about 7 states enact Constitutional amendments -- something hard to do and somewhat unheard of -- to preserve marriage (not one of them mentioned gay, lesbians, or whatever) in just the last couple years disproves your second point. And your third point is ignorant. --Noitall 04:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• More personal attacks. Anyway, the category wouldn't be empty, because it would have articles on the old laws. And the fact that some people think that it's preserving marriage doesn't mean that it's objectively true, or that it's NPOV to say so. See for example [1][2][3] and on and on. Dave (talk) 04:19, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Given you know of these amendments, I'm sure you're not ignorant of what the true intent of them were regardless of whether they "mentioned gay, lesbians, or whatever." So to make such a disingenuous remark is almost certainly meant to mislead. One need only look at the campaigns for and debate on them to see exactly who the amendments targeted. Perhaps you are the one that should be admitting your bias. Autiger 04:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Legislation (adversely) affecting LGBT civil rights (suggested by Samuel Wantman)
  • This one doesn't get around the original question of whether the "rights" in question are really rights, so it's probably not a solution. Dave (talk) 23:36, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Rename to "LGBT-related laws", as suggested. Disclaimer: This is not a well-researched vote, but it seems a reasonable name to me. Let me know (on my talk page) if I'm missing something. — Sebastian (talk) 05:40, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 17:22 (UTC)

POV category. --tomf688^(talk) 04:11, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• note: a previous CFD is here [4].

Extemely POV as to opinion and as to title. Implies that people or groups are against or for “rights” or against any class of people. In fact, the creators are pushing certain POV politics, and this is their criteria. They have no NPOV determination as to who gets on here. And if this is allowed, then NPOV policies open it up to the universe of political possition possibilities. Category:Anti-gay rights legislation and Category:LGBT rights opposition are entirely POV – in fact, they are as bad as it gets because they are intentionally POV. Closed minds probably cannot see this all POV category for what it is. User:Noitall created other categories here as the other side to the same POV coin. --Noitall 04:15, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• • Don't some groups and individuals have opposition to gay rights as a core definition? Anita Bryant, Fred Phelps, the Family Research Council? How would you suggest we rename the category to be NPOV? -Willmcw 07:38, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, magnet for heavy dispute, and too POV for a cat. Radiant_>|< 12:33, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• rename or Keep. It's useful to have Fred Phelps and Jerry Falwell in one category. My views on this mirror those of User:Seth Mahoney, who voted on this during the previous CFD:

there is opposition to the idea of LGBT rights, and it usually takes the form of questioning whether or not what people are referring to when they talk about LGBT rights is any sort of human rights at all. So the dispute is, in fact, about LGBT rights, and there are people who, in fact, oppose LGBT rights, either as a concept or in whole. So, while supporters of LGBT rights will read this title as "people who oppose LGBT rights", people who oppose can read it as "people who oppose the idea that 'LGBT rights' are rights at all". The title as is carries a dual meaning, and that works for the category. A single meaning would be preferrable, but I don't think any acceptable ones have been proposed yet.

edit: for example, the category could be "Political opponents of LGBTs" or something similar. Dave (talk) 15:28, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It's unfortunate that there isn't more agreement as to what constitutes a right for non-heteros, but regardless I can't see the value of this as a category even if the title is accepted as NPOV. Postdlf 18:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or rename. I agree that the name suggests some bias, but as was said earlier the category is extremely useful, and this is an active area of research for a lot of people (yeah, so I cut-and-pasted from my above vote). I'd be all for renaming, though, if someone could think of more acceptable names. Also, yeah, for consistency, I should also maintain that that whole dual-meaning thing is there. People who oppose what gay rights supporters would call gay rights oppose them as rights at all, so they are definitionally opposed to gay rights. -Seth Mahoney 23:01, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or rename. Same reasons as Seth Mahoney. -- Samuel Wantman 23:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV. mat334 | talk 23:59, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain, for reasons outlined elsewhere. --Kbdank71 20:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as is. Jonathunder 20:14, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
• Keep I don't think it POV to note that some people are opposed to gay rights, and some laws are drafted with the idea that gay people should be withheld certain rights. Axon 07:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - this is a POV category promoting a gay rights political position. Rangerdude 16:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agreed with Radiant. I am too lazy to write but I am for delete of all "pro-" and "anti-" similar 5 categories above. Pavel Vozenilek - copy from Category:Pro-Family below.
• Keep I would still argue that LGBT rights are opposed and that this category is NPOV. Axon 07:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or rename per User:Seth Mahoney's thinking quoted above. Kappa 21:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Rename. These people go together. I have no problem finding a different name for their category as long as they stay together. I don't think it helps merging them into a bigger category. -- Samuel Wantman 23:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree with Axon. CDThieme 14:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Both sides would say that xyz person is opposed to gay and lesbian rights, so what's the problem? The only difference is that people for gay rights call it "equal rights" and those opposed call it "special rights," but both sides use "rights" -- so this is clearly NPOV imho. --Quasipalm 18:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• You ignore the application as it is used. First, it is not a generic "rights" but "rights opposition", which totally discredits your NPOV and rights argument. Second, as it is applied, it only links individual people with an express POV as determined by Users with a POV. --Noitall 20:29, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - ghost 28 June 2005 13:41 (UTC). See below.

Request REVOTE for those who voted to keep or rename based on the resolution of previous category to create LGBT-related laws and that all legitimate NPOV purposes are now accomplished and that Category:LGBT rights opposition should be deleted. --Noitall 13:33, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, maybe it's the heat, but I couldn't make head or tails out of that sentence. Radiant_>|< 14:01, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it means that if Category:Anti-gay rights legislation is replaced with LGBT-related laws (see above), then we can presumably also merge Category:LGBT rights opposition into LGBT-related laws. --Kbdank71 20:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Partially correct. Merge would be inappropriate because it would keep all the POV that was eliminated with Dave and my resolution regarding the change of name of the sub-category here from Category:Anti-gay rights legislation to Category:LGBT-related laws. We made that page an NPOV page similar to Category:Family_law. The concern here with Category:LGBT rights opposition is that the “opposition” where individual people are labeled based on a subjective POV criteria, makes this category unredeemably POV. In short, any such category must be about laws, not people. I believe that all legitimate NPOV purposes are accomplished with the new category Category:LGBT-related laws and that Category:LGBT rights opposition should be deleted. --Noitall 23:31, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

For the record, people have continued to vote "keep" since this request was put up, so it seems that they disagree that this category's function is covered by the one above. Dave (talk) 03:25, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

• That is true. All I can say is, if people think that one of the most egregious NPOV violations (the entire category's subject and criteria for inclusion are intentionally POV) is ok because they agree with the subject and POV, then we will just have to live with it. It is pretty bad, but it is not the end of the Wiki world.

--Noitall 04:00, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

The reason that this category is named correctly and should be kept is that the people who normally fall into this category identify themselves as being in this category. Where this differs from some others I've voted on is, while it started as a Code word (figure of speech), it has since become a category in mainstream culture. Like any slang term that we may be uncomfortable with, our discomfort is insufficient to render it not a part of the language or culture.--ghost 28 June 2005 13:41 (UTC)

Quite misguided. Many categories are far more "figures of speech," such as Category:Pro-family and Category:Racists. As for the former, I have not seen you support that one on this page. POV simply blinds people to their inconsistancy and irrationality. --Noitall June 28, 2005 14:19 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)

POV title. Implies those not included are against the 1st Amendment. User:Noitall created this and the three below in a way that endorsing the conservative framing of their positions. -- Decumanus 02:15, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

• delete for reasons above. Dave (talk) 02:19, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• delete, but only if same POV categories: Category:Anti-gay rights legislation and Category:LGBT rights opposition are also deleted. --Noitall 04:24, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • You mean: the former renamed? — Sebastian (talk) 05:47, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Delete, magnet for heavy dispute, and too POV for a cat. Radiant_>|< 12:33, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and not just because of the inane criteria currently listed. Based on the category title, it's far too broad it would basically have to be applied to everyone short of censors like James Dobson and Anthony Comstock. Postdlf 18:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Too broad. mat334 | talk 00:01, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete or rename. As it exists today, it is way too POV. However, a rename to something like Category:Notable Pro-First Amendment organisations might be in order. Firestorm 16:40, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• delete. ghost 28 June 2005 12:56 (UTC). This is a Code word(figure of speech). It may deserve an article, but not a category.

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 28 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)

Extremely POV. Implies those in category of self-proclaimed "originalists" are against the U.S. Constitution. -- Decumanus 02:12, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

• delete. Category:Originalists would do the same thing without the POV Dave (talk) 02:19, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Originalism: both sides can probably agree to Originalism as a way of saying the same thing without the POV. [edit:] I had assumed that there was already an originalists category when I made my first vote. Dave (talk) 15:31, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• The only possibilities for renaming would be "Constitutional Originalists" and "Living Constitutionalists" (sounds pretty awkward), but this does not solve the "self proclaimed" assessment problem or that the assessment is POV. --Noitall 19:25, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• delete, but only if same POV categories: Category:Anti-gay rights legislation and Category:LGBT rights opposition are also deleted. --Noitall 04:24, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, period, and have Noitall read WP:POINT. --Calton | Talk 14:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, magnet for heavy dispute, and too POV for a cat. Radiant_>|< 12:33, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; ignoring the inanely narrow criteria and focusing on the title, basically the only ones who aren't pro-U.S. Constitution are those who want to replace our current system of government, who aren't exactly in the majority. Postdlf 18:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ghost 28 June 2005 12:57 (UTC). Code word (figure of speech)
• Delete. Too broad. mat334 | talk 00:05, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete. Too POV and broad, and when looked at along with the rest of the categories created by Noitall, could seem like a Vanity Page. Firestorm 16:44, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 20:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)

Name is POV. Implies those not in category are anti-marriage. There is a better way to categorize these articles. -- Decumanus 02:09, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

• delete for the reasons above. Wikipedia should not take a stance on whether gay marriage is good or bad for marriage as a whole. Dave (talk) 02:19, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• delete, but only if same POV categories: Category:Anti-gay rights legislation and Category:LGBT rights opposition are also deleted. --Noitall 04:25, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

However, the Federal Marriage Amendment is currently listed as an example of "Anti-gay rights" legislation in that category, but it could just as easily be, and more accurately, since this is its name, "Pro-Marriage" legislation. --Noitall 04:34, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not more accurate. I'm pro-marriage - pro-marriage for everyone equally which includes same-sex marriage. The reality is all these terms are political creations and inherently POV. Autiger 18:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"All these terms are political creations and inherently POV" --> exactly right. But given the fact that you did not make the same statement for "LBGXYZ" or for "Anti-Gay rights", then I assume you approve of POVs as long as you agree with them. Many people are for gay rights also, just not in altering the traditional notion of marriage. --Noitall 18:58, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• • Delete, period, and have Noitall read WP:POINT. --Calton | Talk 14:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, magnet for heavy dispute, and too POV for a cat. Radiant_>|< 12:33, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Meaningless, self-applied rhetorical proxy for those opposed to gay marriage. Postdlf 18:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nuff said. -Seth Mahoney 23:03, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Too broad. mat334 | talk 00:05, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 20:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete due to lack of clarity. Rocky 04:04, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.ghost 28 June 2005 12:59 (UTC). Categories should not be used as Rhetorical devices.

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 28 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)

The very name is extremely POV, suggesting those not included are against the family. If these are to be categorized, there is a better way. -- Decumanus 02:03, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

• delete for reasons above. Dave (talk) 02:19, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• delete, but only if same POV categories: Category:Anti-gay rights legislation and Category:LGBT rights opposition are also deleted. --Noitall 04:25, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, period, and have Noitall read WP:POINT --Calton | Talk 01:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, magnet for heavy dispute, and too POV for a cat. Radiant_>|< 12:33, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agreed with Radiant. I am too lazy to write but I am for delete of all "pro-" and "anti-" similar 5 categories above. Pavel Vozenilek
• Delete. Nothing but a meaningless, self-applied rhetorical proxy for conservative Christians, who are better categorized (if at all) under more explicit category names. Postdlf 18:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nuff said. -Seth Mahoney 23:03, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Too broad. mat334 | talk 00:05, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 20:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Rocky 04:03, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ghost 28 June 2005 13:01 (UTC). Again, a Rhetorical device. This one should be treated with an article because of it's wide usage as a Code word (figure of speech).

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 28 June 2005 17:19 (UTC)

Same reason as shown for Category: Record label artists. While I personally am a fan of this label, I feel it is NPOV to favor this small label ahead of others in categorizing, and I do not feel it fair to add hundreds of hours of work for others trying to add label categories to every artist. The clutter at the bottom of article pages resulting from adding 5 to 15 record labels for each artist that has been on different labels would be ridiculous. Use list format or article on the label and mention a particularly strong label connection in the artist's article if a link is desired; that's enough. Emerman 00:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• That is a good point actually. Many artists have worked for a plethora of labels. Delete, then. (note that I've merged the three nominations, hope you don't mind) Radiant_>|< 09:40, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 20:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per my argument for Category:Record label artists below. -- grm_wnr Esc 09:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 17:15 (UTC)

This item was recently created by a new user enamored of three minor indie recording labels, (the only three listed on the page so far) who thought this would be useful for the articles artists they knew of on the labels. However, this person did not consider the additional work this would cause other Wikipedians trying to be consistent and NPOV (not favoring the interests of three particular labels) because there are scores of recording labels and hundreds of recording artists that we would have to start doing this categorizing for, not just the three minor labels this person is a fan of. Also, although the person creating the category, who is a loyal fan of three particular labels they favor, did not realize this, most recording artists are not the property of one particular label throughout their careers. While there are a handful who stick with one or two labels their whole careers, most artists have been on 6 or 7 (or more) minor and major labels, both in Europe and the U.S. So not only does this parent category and the three minor label child categories the person created lead to a ton of work for other people trying to start categories for all the other hundreds of artist articles at Wikipedia already existing, but each artist is usually affiliated with several labels, not just the single label envisioned by the person creating the category. For instance for the 4AD label artists listed, some have also been on labels like Sire and Rykodisc, among others. Yet this person favored the label they personally liked and didn't start a Sire and Rykodisc category. I believe that this record label fan interest is better for individual record label history pages and List formats, but not categories for music artists. Using category format for this subjectt favors certain labels too much, is NPOV, and most importantly leads to much work for others extending this idea to all other artists. Better to stick to articles and lists for this subject and the three child categories I will list in a minute. The longer this is left unattended, the more work and confusion for others will result. I discovered it when the "4AD Records artist" category was added to two artist articles I authored and edited. Both of the artists have been on other larger labels as well, but the other labels are not given categories. The amount of unnecessary work leaving this new parent category and its subcategories up will create is staggering to consider (think of all the major and minor labels in existence the past 50 years!!!), plus it will lead to a heap of category text at the bottom of articles. Any important label affiliation can be listed in an article without categories needed. Emerman 00:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• POV? what. These categories would be neither superfluous nor POV. I have no opinion on how recording artists should be categorized but "Artists by label" seems useful to me. Keep Until someone gives a valid reason. SchmuckyTheCat 06:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Artists by record label. Radiant_>|< 12:33, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC) Delete per Emerman, this information is better kept in lists since many musicians have worked for multiple labels. Radiant_>|< 09:40, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 20:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We already organize albums by record label, which makes more sense. If it's important, mention labels in the artist article and important artists in the label article. -- grm_wnr Esc 09:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 17:11 (UTC)

This should be outright deleted or merged with the Category:United States musicians which predated it by six months. The American musicians category is a duplicate created by mistake. I depopulated it already because it's a duplication. People worrying about it in the past on the Talk page didn't realize that because it was a duplicate, the solution was this simple. Eventually the other "American" categories should be changed for consistency because United States is more specific, but I'm not listing this one for deletion for that reason; the reason here is duplication of an already existing, preferable category name. If we don't delete it or otherwise "merge" it, it will continue to be used by people occasionally unaware of the United States musicians category who see a blue link when they use American musicians as the category.Emerman 00:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree that it is redundant and confusing. -- Dave C. 02:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Agree. Radiant_>|< 12:33, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep "American musicians" and Delete United States musicians instead. "American", when applied as an adjective to a person, refers to the United States not only in English but as a cognate in many other languages as well. "United States" is furthermore simply not an adjective. Postdlf 18:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • While you do have a point, most such categories are in fact named [[United States <foo>]] rather than [[American <foo>]]. Also, strictly, speaking, 'America' refers to the entire continents of North and South America, both of which are somewhat larger than the US. Radiant_>|< 20:03, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, as pointed out in previous similar debates here, "American" is used to refer to the continents as a whole, even though this usage is a minority one. As such, for the sake of both consistency and clarity, I vote delete. Grutness...wha? 01:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I too agree that it is redundant and confusing. Jonathunder 21:42, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
• Merge "American musicians" into "United States musicians", as we always do. James F. (talk) 20:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Kbdank71 20:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and delete non-standard category:United States musiciansCalJW 16:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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