Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 31

< January 30	February 1 >

January 31

Category:U.S. State Legislators to Category:State legislators of the United States

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 17:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly to change from U.S. to United States. But I believe this is the more correct form, not sure about Legislators vs legislators. Vegaswikian 22:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a proper noun, so should be lower-cased. [1]. >Radiant< 23:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. Golfcam 22:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. Green Giant 22:51, 7 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.

Category:Climatology - Meteorology stubs to Category:Climatology and meteorology stubs

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 move to WP:SFD --Kbdank71 17:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New name with proper capitalization and punctuation. jengod 20:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub categories are handled at WP:SFD, not here (as it says at the top of the page) - please take this nomination there. Grutness...wha? 03:43, 1 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.

Category:Former BBC Newsreaders and Journalists to Category:Former BBC newsreaders and journalists

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 to Category:BBC newsreaders and journalists --Kbdank71 17:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grutness...wha? 08:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Moved from speedy after comments. Vegaswikian 20:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objection Category should not exist. We do not divide people into present and former. Merge into Category:BBC newsreaders and journalists. CalJW 15:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- oop. good point. changing vote to merge as per CalJW. Grutness...wha? 03:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose capitalisation This term makes some sort of point about solidarity and is therefore not neutral, and groups people who don't seem to me to have sufficient in common to justify a category, but I expect there are too many activists who will insist on using it anyway for there to be any point proposing deletion. Choalbaton 08:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a feeling you posted this comment to the wrong section. Bearcat 10:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per CalJW. Green Giant 23:00, 7 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.

Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people to Category:Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender people

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:Lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender people --Kbdank71 16:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after comments. Vegaswikian 20:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning for this is that LGBT stands for Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, so the category should have Lesbian first to match the abbreviation, also transgender is missing from the title even though transgender individuals are put in the category. --Revolución (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agree with the addition of transgender, but disagree with the proposed capitalisation. Should be Category:Lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender people. Also not sure whether it should be "or" or "and" (and you're bound to get people who don't like the Oxford comma, even though I'm in favour of it!) Grutness...wha? 08:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nomination, agree with Gruntess' suggested format. I, for one, oppose the Oxford comma. :) jengod 20:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Gruntess"? Grutness...wha?
The proposed move (or something much like it) has actually been proposed before, with a clear result in favour of the rename — I'm not sure why it never actually got done. I favour the word order, and have no objection to the rename. I'm relatively neutral on the Oxford comma — I don't personally object to it, but it'll create a lot of confusion for others. No frickin' way on the capitalization, though. Stick to Category:Lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender people, with or without the Oxford comma as consensus dictates. Bearcat 10:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added comment: ...and whether the comma is used or not, put a {{categoryredirect}} on the opposing form to minimize the potential confusion. Bearcat 03:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Grutness, with serial comma, definitely. *g* Deborah-jl _Talk 17:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Bearcat and Grutness, not per nomination. I'd prefer it be with the Oxford comma, but if there is some guideline regarding these things I defer to it. -Seth Mahoney 19:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Bearcat and Grutness to Category:Lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender people with or without a comma. -- Samuel Wantman 00:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Grutness and Bearcat, with or without a comma. Mairi 01:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Grutness and Bearcat, no opinion on the comma --Alynna 02:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Crutness and Bearcat, the comma is irreleventEagle (talk) (desk) 21:02, 7 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.

Category:University Students to Category:Wikipedian university students

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 16:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make it obvious that this is a user cat. MeltBanana 19:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nominator. Andjam 01:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename we need to be sure that the encyclopedia and user space is clearly defined.Eagle (talk) (desk) 21:03, 7 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.

Category:Identities to Category:Mathematical identities

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 16:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word "identity" has a different meaning outside of math. This cat is about math. Rename. R adiant _>|< 19:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to avoid confusion. - TexasAndroid 19:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I vote with Radiant. Daphne A 22:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename same reasons as above.

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.

Category:Natives of East Renfrewshire

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 16:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category only contains one article, which doesn't even belong in it. The article in question is about a footballer who died before East Renfrewshire even existed (East Renfrewshire was created from the breakup of the old Strathclyde Regional Council in 1996) so how he can be considered a 'native of East Renfrewshire' is beyond me. Cynical 17:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All 32 Scottish council areas have a subcat "Natives of", see Category:Scottish people by council area. Modern units of administration are the standard way of subdividing countries for categorisation purposes. You may as well argue that Elizabeth I, William Shakespeare and Alfred the Great do not belong in Category:British people, because they lived before the creation of the UK.--Mais oui! 18:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Categorising people by council areas is just a dumb idea on so many levels. All the Scottish people categories need to be re-classified if they are to have any meaning. JW 21:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is in line with all the other Natives of Scotland cats and even if 'dumb' shouldnt be deleted until some alternative is agreed on. JW - what 'reclassification' do you propose? :: Supergolden 09:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment. ~~agree that the council area scheme should go and suggest its by traditional counties.~~ points made here below are good ones - now undecided as to what scheme to follow. Mayumashu 12:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment traditional counties would be even worse - bear in mind that in Scotland nobody really pays any attention to traditional counties (unlike in England where Hampshire, Gloucestershire etc. are where many people count themselves as 'being from') and categorising Scottish people by traditional county would serve no real purpose to either users or editors, since neither really know what areas the traditional counties covered. Do we really want [[Category:Natives of Kincardineshire]] and [[Category:Natives of Wigtownshire]] (for further illustrations on how obscure the Scottish traditional counties are, read Counties of Scotland) Cynical 15:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "... since neither really know what areas the traditional counties covered... " ... and that is not to even begin to mention the nightmare Scottish complexity of Mormaerdoms (early middle ages), Burghs, Royal Burghs, Burghs of Barony, Police burghs, Large burghs, Small burghs, Earldoms (high middle ages), Sherrifdoms (late middle ages), Stewartries (late middle ages/early modern), Shires (briefly post-Union), "Traditional" counties (pre 1889), "Administrative" counties (1889-1975), Lieutenancy areas (post-1975, with numerous boundary changes and re-namings), Regions of Scotland and Districts of Scotland. (I could go on, but you get my point.) There is only one logical way to go about categorisating people by subdivisions, and that is by the one and only, unitary, well-defined Subdivisions of Scotland, of which East Renfrewshire is one out of a nice set of 32. (PS: Scotland never had "Traditional counties": that terminology was only ever applied in England and Wales: still is I understand.)--Mais oui! 21:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment what do you propose as an alternative? i.e., if we delete this category, where do these people belong (I also see that the cat. has been populated and now has 5 members) ::Supergolden:: 17:31, 1 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.

Stadiums by country

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

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are three categories for stadiums by country, which contain about 10 articles between them. On the other hand there are scores of categories in category:Sports venues by country which contain thousands of articles in total. There are categories by country for specific types of stadium such as football/soccer venues and rugby stadiums. There is no need for an intermediate category and hardly any have been created - and the three which exist are not for countries which have a large number of articles. Sports venues is a more inclusive term as it covers indoor arenas, golf courses, racing venues etc. It would be best to merge the three exceptions:

Merge all Choalbaton 16:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per nominator. Bhoeble 09:27, 2 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.

Category:Mountain ranges of the Russian Federation to Category:Mountain ranges of Russia

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 16:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match other categories under Category:Geography of Russia. Darwinek 11:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. Choalbaton 19:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Shorter version is just as correct and better from the consistency standpoint.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 14:20, 2 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.

Category:Rockingham, Western Australia

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 16:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: all this category does is duplicate a list of suburbs in Perth, and the list isn't even complete (there's a more complete one at the Rockingham page).

Bird of paradox 09:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Categories are mean't to group articles of a similar vein. No point categorising one article by itself. Green Giant 23:03, 7 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.

Category:Oregon state highways to Category:Routes in Oregon

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 16:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather confusing. Oregon has two numbering systems - the signed Routes and the unsigned Highways. Each section of state-maintained road gets a Highway designation, while not every Highway is a signed Route, and not every Route is a state-maintained Highway. This category is for the Routes. SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Why does Oregon have to do this? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because they don't buy into the "state maintained == state numbered" bullshit? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom. Green Giant 22:59, 7 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.

Category:U.S. military history 1900-1999 to Category:Military history of the United States 1900-1999

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 16:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be renamed to match Category:Military history of the United States. Sumahoy 06:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Rename as per nominator. Bhoeble 09:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- Darwinek 12:17, 2 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.

Category:British Royal Residences to Category:Royal residences in the United Kingdom

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 15:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

should be in the usual form for categories of buildings and structures to match the rest of those in Category:Buildings and structures in the United Kingdom. Rename CalJW 05:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Support per nom.--Mais oui! 22:32, 1 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.

Category:Policies that do not apply to Uncyclopedia

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling. James James 05:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Funny but not needed. (Hypernick1980 05:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Delete as per nom. CalJW 05:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the policies of other websites are irrelevant. Sumahoy 06:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. If someone can find a use for this, fine, but it's really not en.wikipedia's place to say what is or is not to be accepted by some other wiki - even were the targetted wiki some other wikipedia instead of a wikia site. I'd hesitate to support an en:wikipedia:Des choses qui seront permis au wikipédia francophone mais pas ici as it'd be up to fr: to decide (independently of en) what they are willing to have included in their wiki and we shouldn't second-guess that. --carlb 19:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not relevant to Wikipedia. R adiant _>|< 19:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--nixie 00:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not funny enough. Herostratus 04:27, 3 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.

Category:LGBT serial killers

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Irrelevant, and possibly non NPOV. This category shows a anti LGBT bias, by making a category for serial killers it implies that there is a connection between being a serial killer and being LGBT. Murder is not a part of the LGBT culture. Its as offensive as a category for Catholic Preist conviced for Child Molestation would be and does not belong on Wikipedia Hypernick1980 03:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional strong delete, if and only if Category:LGBT criminals and Category:LGBT murderers are both also deleted, as should have occurred the very first time they were ever nominated for deletion, which has happened over and over now and will continue to happen until someone finally figures out that WP:POINT is non-negotiable. -Silence 05:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, so stop using the category system to create positive LGBT categories as a propaganda exercise. The neutrality policy should apply even to points of view which are so stridently fashionable that their advocates are quite unable to understand that they are just that - points of view. CalJW 05:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Category:LGBT criminals only has Category:LGBT murderers in it. Category:LGBT murderers only has this. So this is disproportionate because it makes it seem like all LGBTs who commit crime are serial killers. On the "positive" side it'd be like if the Category:LGBT actors was dominated by Category:LGBT Oscar winners or something. Could you in least limit yourself to Category:LGBT criminals and then have the subcats concern whether they are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender? That way you'll be doing a fair "mirror" of the "Positive POV pushing" you see.--T. Anthony 21:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda has nothing to do with it. It's all about the Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, which — I clearly have to point out to you again — is a binding policy: an LGBT grouping is valid if the topic has clearly been established as academically, culturally or sociologically significant by external sources. For this category to be kept, you have to prove that the topic of LGBT serial killers has clearly been established as academically, culturally or sociologically significant by external sources. The policy explicitly forbids POV characterizations such as "balancing positive groups with negative groups" as a consideration in the matter. You have two choices: either this category meets the policy, or it doesn't meet the policy. Which is it going to be? Bearcat 21:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Murder is a part of all cultures. Surprising as it may be to some to hear it, LGBT people are not on a higher moral level than the rest of humanity. Sumahoy 06:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think this category should exist, but these "LGBT who are bad people" categories have been voted on before and generally stay. I think the reasoning is a tad weird to be honest. I mean in Category:Christian people the subcat occupations are actors, Socialists, evangelists, hymnwriters, and scientists. There is no Category:Christian criminals. In Category:Jews(an ethnicity and or religion) there is baseball players, chess players, classical musicians, comedy, film directors, historians, scientists, and visual artists. I don't think there is a Category:Jewish criminals. I think we should go by what we'd do with other ethnicities or religions. That said this is not what's agreed on. LGBTs and all their issues fascinate Wikipedians in a way no other religion or ethnicity would. Hence I think this will likely be kept.--T. Anthony 07:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rather pointless category in my opinion (Jswebb23 07:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Strong Delete unless we want Category:African American serial killers, Category:White serial killers; Category:Latino serial killers; Category:Baptist serial killers; etc.... And when this is kept someone should go through the uncategorized serial killers and put them in these useful keepable categories. Ugh! Carlossuarez46 16:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Longhair 18:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename as too ambiguous to be usable. Is this for serial killers who are LGBT or is this for serial killers who specifically target LGBT or other sexual minorities? Hate crimes may deserve a category, but under some less ambiguous name. --carlb 19:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, meaningless cross-section. R adiant _>|< 19:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - TexasAndroid 19:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We don't have Category:White serial killers because we don't have Category:White people because it would express an unfashionable point of view. This category is an unforeseen side effect of the fact that fashionable biases can seep through the cracks. The bias involved here is screamingly obvious and undermines the project. In my opinion the delete voters know this but don't think it matters because it is their own cherished bias. Choalbaton 19:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was only one example. We do have Category:European Americans, Category:Black people, Category:Baptists, Category:Hispanic Americans, etc. Yet we don't have related serial killer categories for them.--T. Anthony 20:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those categories should be thoroughly subdivided over time. If only positive subcategories are created that will be the same sort of blatant bias as with the gay categories.Choalbaton. 20:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's only three positive gategories on the gay, lesbian, etc people deal. At the main Category:LGBT is the subcat Category:Pederasty which is something usually considered negative. Added to that you don't have to go for serial killers to have negative. You could have LGBT prostitutes or rapists or or ones who dealt drugs to gay nightclubs or something. Same with other groups. Things like this though don't connect in any reasonable way.--T. Anthony 20:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does LGBT connect with acting in any reasonable way. You are yet to acknowledge the bias, and you can't begin to justify it without doing so. Choalbaton 08:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hesitant saying this often as it offends people. However I'm Catholic and I believe homosexuals should ideally be celibate. I also favor the right of Catholic schools to refuse students whose parents are homosexuals. I even think LGBT categories are often recklessly added to articles based on rumor or speculation. (Something this adds to rather than diminishes) That out of the way there are likely associations of homosexual actors, but there are no associations of homosexual serial-killers. However if you'll check the talk page at Category:LGBT criminals you'll see I say that if there are homosexual gangs or organized crime groups worthy of mention then the category does serve a purpose. If you know of a society of homosexual hitmen/serial-killers that is a cultural phenomenon anywhere then I'll concede this is valid.--T. Anthony 18:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--nixie 00:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I find the category objectionable, but I can forsee situations in which research might be benefited by the grouping provided by this category. Oughtn't this be about what people will use over how things look? Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 07:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per numerous comments of others. Valiantis 15:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless we are going to delete all the positive LGBT categories as well. WP:NPOV works both ways Cynical 15:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV has nothing to do with it. It's all about the Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, which is a binding policy: an LGBT grouping is valid if the topic has clearly been established as academically, culturally or sociologically significant by external sources. For this category to be kept, you have to prove that the topic of LGBT serial killers has clearly been established as academically, culturally or sociologically significant by external sources. The policy explicitly forbids POV characterizations such as "balancing positive groups with negative groups" as a consideration in the matter. You have two choices: either this category meets the policy, or it doesn't meet the policy. Which is it going to be? Bearcat 21:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is not binding policy - the categorisation page says so. I'll quote: 'This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It illustrates standards of conduct, which many editors agree with in principle. Although it may be advisable to follow it, it is not however policy.' [end quote] Please stop posting misleading statements Cynical 08:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was nominated for deletion not too long ago, and survived. I'll say now what I said then: Keep, if there are enough serial killers who were L, G, B, or T (and publicly identified as such), and if their L-, G-, B-, or T-ness significantly affected their killings. -Seth Mahoney 19:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC) Delete for now. It appears that no significant connection has been established in some, if not most, of the articles in this category. -Seth Mahoney 21:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I suppose. I find Bearcat's point convincing. Seth Mahoney is correct, too, but there is no keep-if category; keep-ifs usually turn into keeps, and the reform specified by the "if" falls by the wayside, in my experience. Herostratus 04:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I'm not saying "keep if these changes are made", but "I'm too lazy to check - keep if these criteria are met". Judging by the vote immediately below this, I'd guess that it is not. -Seth Mahoney 21:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I read through 3 articles in this category, and none even said that the killer was LGBT. They killed young boys, yes, but that doesn't automatically make you LGBT. Until articles are found that show a direct connection between the sexuality of the killer and their crime, it is a useless category. Danaman5 18:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All LGBT categories should be re-examined for encyclopedical value. This is not political soapbox for anyone. Pavel Vozenilek 21:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I voted Keep last time, and I haven't changed my mind. Anthony 16:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Seth Mahoney. -- Samuel Wantman 18:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I fail to see how LGBT serial killers is an established academically-, culturally- or sociologically- significant topic. Mairi 02:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not useful, possibly only here to make somebody's point, and decidedly not academically, culturally or sociologically significant. --Alynna 02:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. Green Giant 23:14, 7 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.

Category:German government images

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images tagged with {{GermanGov}} are categorized here. The template has been deleted as misleading; the category must go, too. Pilatus 01:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Sumahoy 06:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, CSD#C3 (cat created solely from template). R adiant _>|< 14:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--nixie 00:33, 1 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.

Category:Tea Ceremony to Category:Tea ceremony

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

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Similar categories, but different capitalization. --Uthbrian (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge CalJW 05:40, 31 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.