Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2006 January 8 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2006_January_8

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. Syrthiss 20:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No longer used. I've re-written {{main}} so that it functions the same way and uses no meta-templates, and no longer conditionally adds pages to this category. No section of any article linked to 6+ "main articles" at the time I made the change, anyway. Even if it we did need to expand it to take more parameters, it would not involve calls to {{qif}}, making the tasks of using and modifying {{main}} orders of magnitude cheaper. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 23:57, Jan. 8, 2006

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. Syrthiss 21:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category insensitive and unfair; Delete 81.178.224.140 23:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Forgive me for not being sensitive towards convicted sex offenders. Soltak | Talk 00:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Previous comment might point out problem with category name. Should it be narrowed to Convicted sex offenders? As for delete/keep, I have no vote. - dcljr (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support renaming to Category:Convicted sex offenders though I don't think the distinction is a particularly important one. Soltak | Talk 02:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vague. Also problematic for an international encyclopedia in so far as what is considered healthy fun in some parts of the world is a crime in others. There are already Category:Child sex offenders (which I presume means people who sexually molest children) and Category:Rapists in the same parent cat (Category:Sex crimes, which are reasonably universal offences. (There are currently only two articles in the cat and those of the deletionist persuasion might want to question whether the two people these articles are about are sufficiently notable to merit an article). Valiantis 04:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. POV. helohe (talk) 12:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Convicted sex offenders per Soltak. "Convicted sex offenders" is actually more NPOV than Category:Rapists, since plenty of reasonable people disagree about rape definitions but whether or not one has been convicted for a sex crime is a fact. Deborah-jl 13:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Of little value, POV, and flammable. As to convicted - of what, under which country's law? Fellatio before 2003 in certain US states? List homosexuals of the 29 African countries where that is illegal? Weregerbil 18:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see your argument leads anywhere. So fellatio was criminal before 2003, so? If someone was convicted because of it, it's a fairly NPOV item, as they were convicted. If they weren't convicted of it, they wouldn't appear in the category. You might want to subcategorize things into the kinds of sexual crime convicted of. 132.205.45.110 20:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point being: "sex offender" in different cultures and times are very different. Bunching all together is misleading at best. Child molesters, sodomy law offenders, homosexuals, people guilty of pre-marital sex, and adulterers all under "sex offender"? All are crimes somewhere. Tell an off-color joke at the office, get listed as "sex offender" on Wikipedia? Anyone who gets a divorce due to infidelity (or is stoned to death depending on your culture)? Will Bill Clinton (not convicted), or Charlie Chaplin (convicted of siring a child out of wedlock), or Janet Jackson (wardrobe malfunction) join the list too? Subcategorization - seriously? Weregerbil 02:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Care to point out when Janet Jackson was convicted of a sex crime due to the wardrobe malfunction? This is for convicted sex offenders. 132.205.45.148 20:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • She wasn't. The category is not "convicted sex offenders", it is "sex offenders". It could be renamed. Should indecent exposure convictees then be listed? Such as women stoned to death for not wearing a burka under a Taliban regime? Weregerbil 21:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Valiantis. -- Samuel Wantman 05:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Convicted sex offenders — J3ff 06:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, Delete this category completely; it is too vague — J3ff 08:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Adrian Lamo 18:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per the above to designate convictions. It's verifiable and encyclopedic. Editors who wish to distinguish specific acts from sex crimes in general could create subcategories. Durova 18:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and split into relevant categories for nations. This is entirely a matter of law, and as such can't be clearly defined without being tied to a particular legal system. siafu 21:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - way too broad as it stands and with only 3 names on it right now, clearly useless. Agreed with siafu, this needs to be split up into countries and or specific convictions (not cautions, not accusations, not allegations -- court of law convictions). 23skidoo 02:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too vague. Would be more useful split by country or type of offense convicted of. Renaming to Category:Convicted sex offenders would be better than keeping, tho. --Mairi 02:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or - if not - then Rename per Deborah-jl]] If it is retained - the name should definitely include the word "convicted" - otherwise the category may be abused by those wishing to ascribe this awful status on people who have been accused but not convicted - or who authorities had initially suspected but then elected to not prosecute. A conviction in a judicial proceeding should be an essential criterion. Due process has to have been served. Anything less is unfair. And could expose Wikipedia legally if the category is applied to persons who have not been convicted in a judicial proceeding. Davidpatrick 07:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Valiantis.Bjones 13:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Standard for inclusion is unclear. Inclusion on an SO registry? Conviction for an actual assault? I can make a good case for each of those standards, but they'll result in very different lists. I also agree with siafu's point above about the geo-limitation of relying on individual legal systems. | Klaw ¡digame! 14:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-Notable. --Arm 20:58, 15 January 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. Syrthiss 20:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I originally proposed speedy renaming to remove capital. Moving here as Vegaswikian wants the abbreviation to go too. Rename Choalbaton 23:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Avoid abbreviations. Soltak | Talk 23:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Deborah-jl 13:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 21:26, 11 January 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 Speedied. Syrthiss 20:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename -- Current name has the "l" in logos capitalized, which does not match other Category:Logos subcategories. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Obvious candidate for speedy renaming. I'll move it there myself. Soltak | Talk 22:31, 8 January 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 + merge. Syrthiss 20:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:World War I American ships to Category:World War I ships of the United States

Category:World War I American battleships to Category:World War I battleships of the United States

Category:World War I American destroyers to Category:World War I destroyers of the United States

Category:World War I American submarines to Category:World War I submarines of the United States

Per naming policy, ships are to be of country. This will bring these into line with other Category:World War I ships sub cats. Joshbaumgartner 18:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename both and Merge both. siafu 21:27, 11 January 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 Keep all --Syrthiss 20:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Only one entry, significant expansion seems unlikely. – Seancdaug 06:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose because it is a subcategory of Category:Years in Mexico for someone following history of Mexico by years.
• Oppose If something happened in Mexico it should be in the Mexican category. Bhoeble 14:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Only one entry, significant expansion seems unlikely. – Seancdaug 06:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose because it is a subcategory of Category:Years in Mexico for someone following history of Mexico by years.
• Oppose If something happened in Mexico it should be in the Mexican category. Bhoeble 14:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Abögarp, 14:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Only one entry, significant expansion seems unlikely. – Seancdaug 06:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose because it is a subcategory of Category:Years in Mexico for someone following history of Mexico by years.
• Oppose If something happened in Mexico it should be in the Mexican category. Bhoeble 14:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Only one entry, significant expansion seems unlikely. – Seancdaug 06:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose because it is a subcategory of Category:Years in Mexico for someone following history of Mexico by years.
• Oppose If something happened in Mexico it should be in the Mexican category. Bhoeble 14:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Only one entry, significant expansion seems unlikely. – Seancdaug 06:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose because it is a subcategory of Category:Years in Mexico for someone following history of Mexico by years.
• Oppose If something happened in Mexico it should be in the Mexican category. Bhoeble 14:42, 8 January 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. Syrthiss 20:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename so users will have a better idea what it contains without having to open it. Abbreviations are against policy. Choalbaton 03:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Bhoeble 14:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. the official name of the league was changed from East Coast Hockey League to ECHL - see the article on the league Brcreel 06:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Brcreel. The article makes clear that the name was officially changed to no longer be an abbreviation so that the league could absorb the teams from the former West Coast Hockey League. siafu 21:29, 11 January 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 Deleteiana. Syrthiss 21:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, what? "Things associated with the study of Steven Seagal". "Seagalology" gives 109 results, so I guess that is not really a notable thing. --Conti|✉ 00:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No question.--ThreeAnswers 04:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If he is to have a category, which he probably shouldn't, it shouldn't be called this. Bhoeble 14:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If something is that associated with Seagal, it should be linked on his page, not in his own category Liamdaly620 19:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose perhaps there should be a modification in the text on that page, but the category is valid. Seagal is increasingly a focus of serious research and scholarly attention. Networking related articles serves the interests of those interested in this field. --65.9.9.249 23:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? I challenge you to cite even one valid example of scholarly attention to Steven Seagal. Soltak | Talk 23:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Film Theory Goes to the Movies: Cultural Analysis of Contemporary Film by Jim Collins, Hilary Radner, Ava Preacher Collins. Review author[s]: Wheeler Winston Dixon. Film Quarterly, Vol. 47, No. 3 (Spring, 1994) , p. 54. (note: I am not being flippant; this is what you requested). --65.9.9.249 01:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete If every person who has scholarly attention paid gets a category for them... This is silly. Deborah-jl 13:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I wasn't going to vote, but after that last comment I can't stand not to. Completely unnecessary category. Maybe I should start Category:Soltakia. Soltak | Talk 23:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A reference in Film Quarterly does not make him an academic discipline. Calsicol 02:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Given the huge number of people vaguely associated with a huge number of things... The mind wobbles. Rorybowman 05:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • what? inclusion in wikipedia makes anything an "academic displine," right? --65.9.9.249 02:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Soltak | Talk 17:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, "Steven Seagal movies" might be legitimate, although I'm not pushing for it. But everything related to the man? No.Bjones 05:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Either delete, or remove items not related specifically to Seagal and rename to Category:Steven Seagal. -Sean Curtin 01:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, convention is to categorize films by director, not by actor. --Vizcarra 01:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 21:30, 11 January 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. Syrthiss 21:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename without the abbreviation in line with policy. Choalbaton 00:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename per conventions. Bhoeble 14:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to expand the abbreviation, but there should really be a better name for this. I just can't figure out what that better name is. siafu 21:31, 11 January 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.