The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 09:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as overcategorization, or create the missing 49 additional subcats. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wouldn't it in fact be 549 additional subcategories, such as Category:Halfbacks from Hawai'i? —SlamDiego 22:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently there's 21 position subcats, so a full set for states would require 1050. If you add ethnicity you can multiply that by few hundred. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Granted, I created the category so I would naturally vote to keep it, however, I think its a useful category. I don't see why having one category of this nature for Louisiana means you have to create one for each state. The reason I created this category is because Louisiana is notable for producing a disproportionate amount (based on population) of successful American football quarterbacks, a fact reported on by Sports Illustrated a year or so ago. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seancp (talk • contribs) 2006 November 30 02:59 UTC.
  • If kept, I recommend a Rename to Category:Louisiana quarterbacks, convention of Category:People from Louisiana by occupation -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If kept, I think the current name is better. It's not the case with Louisiana, but for most states, the X quarterbacks construction would imply (to football fans) that the players attended the University of X. ×Meegs 11:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a good point, hadn't thought of that. I withdraw my suggestion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Listify. That way you can add other information like teams played for, years and other information. Vegaswikian 08:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Please see Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, or Yogi Berra. Excessive subcategorization for atheletes such as indicating both their profession and place of origin will inhibit navigation. Dr. Submillimeter 09:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. American football players are now categorized by position, college, and team. If we were to add U.S. state of origin categories (and I'm not sure that we should), I think they should stand alone (e.g. American football players from Louisiana), rather than intersecting any of the three existing schemes. If, as Seancp says, quarterbacks from Louisiana are widely recognized as an significant set, then the fact would be better covered with a few of sentences in an article. ×Meegs 12:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, overcat. (Radiant) 14:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just refer to the state's claimed prolific quarterback output in an article. Osomec 18:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete overcategorization. Proliferation of excess categories needs to be snipped, or the category box at the bottom of every article will be too crowded to be useful. Doczilla 07:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous comments. Hawkestone 15:53, 2 December 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 11:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Halifax and District into Category:Calderdale

• Merge, Halifax and its districts are basically Calderdale, and is ambigious, as it could also mean Halifax, Nova Scotia. Will ^{(Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?)} 21:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely ambiguous; when I initially saw this category name, as a Canadian I assumed it was redundant with Category:Halifax Regional Municipality until I actually looked at it. But at the same time, again as a Canadian, I couldn't see Category:Calderdale and immediately know that it was inclusive of the British Halifax. I'd favour some kind of merge, certainly, but I wonder if there might be a suitable alternate name, more indicative of the relationship between the two names, to merge both categories into instead of one into the other. Bearcat 01:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, Halifax and District is totally the wrong category to have. Some places (eg Clifton, West Yorkshire) are in Calderdale, but have Huddersfield postcodes and telephone STD codes. Rbirkby 23:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brighouse, Rastrick, and Clifton are what I can think of that have HD postcodes and STD codes, but are in Calderdale. Will ^{(Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?)} 13:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge This category is not based on an official subdivision. Hawkestone 15:54, 2 December 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only member is already in Category:Rivers of Azerbaijan, I assume Category:Lakes of Azerbaijan will be here shortly. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is an unnecessary layer in categorization. Dr. Submillimeter 21:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for redundancy. Hawkestone 15:55, 2 December 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Stub templates ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Okay, this is a complicated one, but the short story is that deletion review sent this category here to see if consensus had changed since a discussion at CFD in March that had relatively little input. The category was deleted as a result of that discussion, then recreated independently earlier this month and deleted as a G4 speedy candidate. This is a procedural nomination on my part so I abstain at present. I will notify the deleter and the Stub Sorting project. -- nae'blis 19:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to avoid extra work synchronizing WP:WSS/ST and this category. WP:WSS/ST works well and has a lot more information. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 20:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Strong delete. The more I think about this, the more worried I get. I've commented this topic a bit more here [1]. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 00:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The main reason for me to create the category Stub templates, is that the stub template had no category. I fail to see what is the BIG problom with that. To my knowledge, most wikis use the same system and it doesn't seem to bo a problem. I know that stubs already have categories. (A structure a little overdone, if I may say so. It should have stayed simple right at the beginning.) However, even if WP:WSS/ST is the list of approved stub templates, it took me a debate to learn of its existence. And I'm not a newbie. Wouldn't it more simple to categorize the stub templates, like every other template is? It is a fact that there are many categories, because there are MANY stub articles. (People don't develop their creation anymore? they simply create a series of articles from a list of names or topics and place a nice stub template in it, now don't they. Wow! Nice work! No wonder why we have so many stubs.) My point is, since there are much less stub templates then stub articles, we wouldn't need to place them in overly precise categories. There may be thousands of stubs and hundreds of categories. There shouldn't be that many stub template categories. The main titles of the Stub types page should be quite enough.

I'm not trying to criticize the job done with sorting project. The page that was developped is really, REALLY well done. The categorization of the templates should be inspired by it. But a newcomer that searches for a simple template for his new article will probably know nothing about the project and try to look in the categories.

That is why they should exist. Why do you think they've been asked for, or even created so many times? There is a need for it. Delete the stub template category and I give you a couple of months for another user to create it over again. How many times will it take to let go and accept a category for stub templates?

Saying the maintenance of such categories would be too complicated is a lousy (lazy ???!) excuse. And a lack of trust in the wiki community. There can only be 50 to 75 new categories to manage if categorization is done well. Simply start with the principle that subcategories should only be created when a category gets to populated. And the job doesn't need to be done in one night. Wikipedia is a work in constant progress. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 20:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've been here 15 months and it still takes me multiple tries to find the right stub template. Usually I end up going to the country/main topic, and looking for a subcategory that fits more closely (i.e. Category:Australian writers). Then I look at that category to see if it is kind enough to tell me what the stub template is. Rinse and repeat; so I could see some advantage to this... -- nae'blis 20:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. These items, since there are so many of them, are much better handled in a hierarchical list, which they already are, at WP:WSS/ST. Adding a category to these simply increases the workload for WP:WSS with no apparent effect, and also increases the chances of stub templates being created and going unnoticed, something which is already a major headache for the stub-sorting project (Robin Hood, it's not a lack of trust per se, it's simply cold hard experience. Have a look at WP:WSS/D to see the sort of problems often encountered with "discovered" stub templates - be warned, though - it's an extremely big page so will take some time to load). As to the "delete it and a couple of months from now it will be recreated", it's been eight months since it was deleted, and this is the first time anyone has commented on that deletion, let alone tried to re-create it, so I think your "couple of months" is a little wayward. I think it's far more likely that a newbie looking for information about stub categories would be guided by the link on the template to WP:STUB - which itself explains all about the stub hierarchy and links large to the stub type list. Nae'blis - the list I mentioned above, since it's in hierarchical form, is a far easier way to find a template than trying to hunt through a category of stub templates which would stretch to about 18 pages (yes, there are about 3600 stub templates). Grutness...wha? 22:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete profoundly redundant. If one wants to find a template by textual search, there's WP:WSS/P; if one wants to find one by topic, one can navigate the stub category hierarchy. This smacks of categorisation for categorisation's sakes (and how one can advocate this while criticising the categorisation of stubs by topic (... which is rather the whole point of the exercise) as "overdone" boggles the mind). Alai 03:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Grutness. (Radiant) 14:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, frankly dangerous category. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Dangerous in what way? Encouraging stubs to be created outside of the WP:SSP? -- nae'blis 16:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well my primary concern is that it would lead to the assumption templates deserve expansion in the same vein as articles, but perhaps dangerous was poor wording.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the purpose is to categorise the templates, not to identify templates as being stubs... Though my head has now started to hurt... Alai 01:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redundant, and encourages the creation of stub templates/categories outside of procedure. -Sean Curtin 01:58, 3 December 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 section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: speedily deleted as recreation. -- nae'blis 21:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT criminals ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, Category appears to have been creäted to insinuäte a linkage not supported by modern research. —12.72.70.76 19:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral, leaning toward Keep. If categorizing criminals by things like race, nationality (see all the serial killer by nationality categories) is legit then this is no less legit. I see nothing in the cat history indicating that the motives of the cat creator were anything less than pure so the reason offered for deletion strikes me as less than compelling. Otto4711 19:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As re-creation. I remember when this existed and was deleted. Also there is no Category:Buddhist criminals or Category:Deaf criminals. Criminals aren't categorized by inclination or non-criminal behavior.--T. Anthony 20:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as recreation of old category, I believe it may be 2005/2004 November 24? I stumbled across it s' CFD just last week when I was trying to find a shortcut for CFD/Today using Google. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. 18 Nov 2005: No consensus.
2. 8 Feb 2006: Delete.

—12.72.70.76 21:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Retired people ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, way too broad. Most people retire at some point, making this not notable or useful. Unless it's only for living people who are retired, but then it'd be a subcategory of Category:Living people, which is disapproved. Mairi 18:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Everyone will eventually become retired, if they survive long enough. Seems a little broad. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. ×Meegs 12:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a defining characteristic. (Radiant) 14:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/delete. I've dropped a message to the category's creator as a courtesy (that seems to be general practice now with the "proposed deletion" template on articles). I'd say that any category should define something objective and lasting: this one fails that, just like Category:Pop singers aged 18. There could be a case argued for a different category of older folk who achieve notability in their pensionable years - in the UK, say Jack Jones or Rodney Bickerstaffe with pensioners' organisations - but not here. --Mereda 15:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, do we really want to see categories like Category:Retired actors, Category:Retired politicians, etc? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete On top of the problem that everybody eventually either retires or dies, there's also the issue of people retiring from one career and starting another. If someone retires from acting to become a politician, have they "retired"? Or what about people who retired for a while then later restarted their career, such as Michael Jordan? Do you have to voluntarilly retire, or does being laid off or fired also count? Too many questions for this category, I think. Dugwiki 18:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thats a very good point. Should Ronald Reagon and Arnold Schwartzenegger count as Category:Retired actors? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too vague and too broad. -Sean Curtin 01:58, 3 December 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:College-Conservatory of Music alumni. the wub "?!" 11:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:University of Cincinnati College-Conservatory of Music alumni, convention of Category:Alumni by university in the United States. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Appears to be a very narrow category. Sixth largest music school in the USA. Can justifiably be merged into Category:University of Cincinnati alumni. Ohconfucius 01:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename either as nominated or to simply Category:College-Conservatory of Music alumni. Category:University of Cincinnati alumni is terribly underpopulated right now (aside from the subcategories for athletes), but I suspect this sub might eventually be useful. ×Meegs 12:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the school did not join the University of Cincinnati until 1962, so not all of its alumni are associated with the University. I suppose those students don't technically belong as grandchildren of Category:University of Cincinnati alumni, but I'm willing to overlook that. ×Meegs 12:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • • A lot of alumni categories are overlooking mergers and name changes, though most of the resultant institutions regard themselves as mergers. I suppose the best precedent is Category:Alumni of City University, London where there's a sub-category for Category:Alumni of the Inns of Court School of Law which has only recently merged into the university. Timrollpickering 12:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename either as nominated or to simply Category:College-Conservatory of Music alumni, per comments above. Timrollpickering 12:30, 3 December 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Persians in the Indian subcontinent. the wub "?!" 11:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, divide between Category:Persian-Indians, Category:Iranian-Indians, Category:Persian-Pakistanis, Category:Iranian-Pakistanis as needed. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I don't think the proposed alternatives represent real or useful groupings. Alternative rename to Category:Persians in the Indian subcontinent. The historically notable Persian influence on the subcontinent took place before the present state divisions came into being. Osomec 18:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Persians in the Indian subcontinent which is a useful historical category, whereas the original proposal is simply an inappropriate attempt to impose the modern American way of doing things on a very different region and era. Hawkestone 15:57, 2 December 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Tony Award winners. the wub "?!" 11:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Tony Award for Leading Actor in a Play ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete Merge, Unnecessary division of Category:Tony Award winners and adequately covered by the list at Tony Award for Best Performance by a Leading Actor in a Play. Otto4711 15:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reviewing the Leading Actor cat three of them aren't included in the award winners cat, so Merge instead of delete. Otto4711 15:44, 30 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People linked to The Stig ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A narrowly focussed category which would likely not have more than ten drivers in it. The identity of The Stig is extensively discussed, with good references and wikilinking, at the article itself. Adding this category to an article on a particular driver is no better than putting a mention into the body of the article itself. Not only does this diminish the value of having such a category, it potentially presents a way for editors to insert by-the-way info without having to justify its importance or "article worthiness". Zunaid©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 15:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, can be discussed in the The Stig article. Recury 16:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Linked to" is vague. I'm linked to it right now simply by talking about it. Doczilla 07:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Any article could have a "linked to" category, but that is not what categories are for. Osomec 21:12, 4 December 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Panhandles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This category collects articles on geographical features that may look like panhandles, such as the Texas Panhandle, the Nebraska Panhandle, the Connecticut Panhandle, the Batken Province, and the Wakhan Corridor. Except for the vague shape of the political boundaries, these locations have little to do with each other. Categorizing these articles together is not useful; the category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 15:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Recury 16:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 19:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Don't see much connection between the Caprivi Strip and Florida Panhandle. Also, the name panhandle is specifically US-centric - these sort of places aren't considered that special anywhere else and don't have a separate name (thus no article on the "Warwickshire panhandle" or the "Limburg panhandle"). Grutness...wha? 23:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Unreferenced" and "original research" warnings have been added to the parent article, panhandle, partly because of the problems noted by Grutness Dr. Submillimeter 00:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Am looking forward to Category:Vaguely rectangular geo-political regions, tho ;) Mairi 01:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Osomec 18:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OR that invokes POV. Doczilla 07:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Timrollpickering 12:56, 5 December 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Serb war criminals ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Please refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Serb war criminals. Both the category and the article should go in pair. Duja► 13:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redundant with Category:People convicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. —Psychonaut 17:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per Psychonaut and discussion of the list. // Laughing Man 17:40, 30 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as recreation, per previous consensus. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animals Featured in Zoo Tycoon 2 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
WP:ISNOT a collection of indiscriminate information. By parallel, it's not a collection of indiscriminate categorization, either. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, trivia. (Radiant) 13:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as recreated content. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per UtherJoelito (talk) 13:50, 30 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 12:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:St Helens, Merseyside, to match St Helens, Merseyside. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - a necessary merge to avoid duplicate categories. BlueValour 17:56, 30 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was keep. the wub "?!" 12:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:2007 in wrestling ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
While wrestling in general is notable, year by year categories for it isn't needed. RobJ1981 05:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- bulletproof ^3:16 05:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - Why is it that a sport should not have year by year categories? For now (while 2007 has not even started yet) 4 articles, (which now have been replaced into Category:2007 in sports) are/were already in the category. Dumping every sports event in 2007 in sports is in my opinion a bad thing. Check for instance Category:2006 in sports and see how messy and unorganised that is because all sports and its events are just there without any structure. Lets have a neat structure and make a good start for future references and category browsing instead of messing it up, so no one can find what they are really looking for. SportsAddicted | discuss 09:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, wrestling is expansive enough of a topic to require these kinds of categories. Recury 16:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems like a perfectly reasonable subcategory for Category:2007 in sports. Dugwiki 16:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I think in principle it is a vald category, however it is currently empty. So, unless some scheduled event is added to the category, delete without prejudice to recreation when there are valid contents. Tim! 18:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It was not empty, but User:RobJ1981 User:3bulletproof16 made it empty when nominating it. SportsAddicted | discuss 19:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok Keep and restore the original content. Naughty Rob. Tim! 21:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm pretty sure it was empty BEFORE I nominated, so don't accuse me of something I didn't do. There is no other year articles for wrestling. Why should it be the start of it? What's next... years for reality shows? years for talk shows? RobJ1981 22:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My apologies to Rob, it was User:3bulletproof16 who emptied the category. The reason for this category to exist is because otherwise the 2007 in sports category will be overcrowded and unsorted without any structure. SportsAddicted | discuss 22:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Pro wrestling isn't a sport, period. It's a written scripted show, so it being in a sports category shouldn't even happen in my opinion. Ultimate Fighting and similar things: technically a sport, since it's a competition of fighting that isn't scripted. WWE and other pro wrestling: not a sport. No reason to mislead people by sticking it in a sports category in the first place. Also: there is categories for WWE and other wrestling events already...a year cat is just overcategorizing in my opinion. RobJ1981 04:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not you consider wrestling a "sport" is another topic entirely, and would only really affect what the parent category for wrestling is (should the parent be a "sports" category or an "entertainment" category?) You wouldn't delete the category though based on having an incorrectly labelled parent. Also, the fact that there are subcategories for specific wrestling promotions means that having this as a parent category to organize those promotion-specific subcatergories is all the more important. And, even if you were to delete "2007 in WWE", for example, that would still leave those articles requiring categorization, and "2007 in wrestling" would work fine. Thus, regardless of your stance or opinion on wrestling, the fact is that it is a massive entertainment industry that generates a large number of articles and date-specific events. Organizing those events by year is a natural and fairly standard methodology. Dugwiki 18:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, there is also Olympic wrestling to be held in 2007, which will be added as soon as the articles are available. SportsAddicted | discuss 00:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Use Category:2007 in sports category and/or Delete Wrestling articles generally don't have a lot of year-by year events. While the subject is notable and helps create less clutter in the Sports category, 4 articles (as of now) being categorized doesn't help. I would support a recreation if there were a lot more articles that needed to be categorized, but not now. semper fi — Moe 02:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. If you put all sports articles in any sport which in your opinion do not deserve their own 2007 category in the 2007 in sports category it will be very hard to browse to the category and find what you are looking for. It does definately help and who says it will stay with these four articles, in fact the year has not even started yet. SportsAddicted | discuss 13:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Added calendar to the category to show the need of the category. SportsAddicted | discuss 13:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Question is whether to distinguish professional wrestling from competitive wrestling though. Sam Vimes | Address me 17:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, although I'd prefer to see the present articles moved to a subcat for Category:2007 in professional wrestling; I think it's ideal to keep the pro and sport wrestling separate, and everything in the category's calendar in non-professional. MisfitToys 01:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Misfit, maybe you should have discussed before going ahead and moving all of them to that. TJ Spyke 01:42, 7 December 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 12:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Male Sahaba
• Category:Female Sahaba

Merge both into Category:Sahaba, why have three sahaba categories when one is enough? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. No risk of overpopulation. Ohconfucius 03:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep i splited them for navigation purpose, the goal is to have both being sub-sets of Sahaba. I find it usefull ofr many purpose, overpopulation not being one of them. What hurt does it do? --Striver 11:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, not large enough to require subcatting, and in general subcatting by gender is discouraged. (Radiant) 13:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why, and according to who? We do have Category:Muslim women, so i dont get why this is any worse.--Striver 14:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• According to WP:NCCAT. A female Sahaba would be in Category:Sahaba and Category:Muslim women; I don't see a problem with that? (Radiant) 16:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, how do you do if you want to find a list of the female Sahaba? There are million times more Muslims than sahaba, so Category:Muslim women is not really a helpful tool. --Striver 02:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also refer you to Category:Monarchs and Category:Kings that parallels Category:Sahaba and Category:Male Sahaba. There is enough Sahaba to make this distinction a usable searching tool, trust me, i spend 8+ houres a day editing in this area, and this helps. --Striver 03:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not create a List of female Sahaba article? It sounds as though you were planning to populate the Female Sahaba category anyway ...-- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a great idea. I view that as an argument to keep all three categories, since the topics are geting more worked on. --Striver 21:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Recury 16:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. for easy navigation. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 05:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge BhaiSaab ^talk 02:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The category is informative and will also help readers finding the information about male and female Sahaba quickly. It definitely deserves space on wikipedia. --TruthSpreader^Talk 03:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, specifically that no one has suggested that "Female Sahaba" and "Male Sahaba" are topics that could support an encyclopedic article. Mairi 03:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets remember that we have different categories for kings and queens, so that guideline (note:not policy) is not set in stone. Also, there is a genuine desire to be able to pin point down the female Sahaba, specially considering the circumstances.--Striver 09:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do note that the guideline start by acknowledging that Category:Female Nazis exists. From a Muslim POV, Sahaba are more notable than Nazis, since Sahaba do have a religious imporance, while Nazis do not. --Striver 09:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware it's a guideline, but it still provides guidance on what is or isn't a good idea. What are the circumstances, beyond that there's lots of Sahaba? Also, we have Queen regnant, and other articles on queens, but no one has suggested what an article on Female Sahaba (or Male Sahaba) might have, beyond a list. Mairi 05:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: I think no use to keep two categories. --- ALM 08:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• MergeWikipidian 01:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This is not a violation of WP:CATGRS, which is a guideline, not a rule and exceptions are allowed. But if this is deleted, Striver, why dont you make a "List of female Sahaba" and the male Sahaba. I'm surprised you guys are voting for the deletion, but alright: you could also create a list of Sahaba if it doesnt exist and in that page include a table of Female Sahaba and Male Sahaba separately. People are definitely interested to know who the female Sahaba were, for example so this list should definitely exist somehow. --Matt57 03:19, 6 December 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was relisting here. David Kernow (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following three options suggested by Loxlie 05:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Quackery to Category:Medical Pseudoscience

Rename - The term (and even the definition in the Wiki article) is controversial. Its been subject to a deletion discussion before, and, under the current name, causes silly and endless POV wars in many controversial subjects (see talk:homeopathy). Its an archaic and unspecific term, which only serves to further entrench already entrenched opinions.
If Category:Medical Pseudoscience is accepted, it could become a subcategory of category:pseudoscience, which would be subject to a separate discussion'.
or...

• Category:Quackery into Category:Alternative medicine

Merge - Much as I personally agree, such a merger would inevitably be controversial, and therefore not helpful...
or...

• Category:Quackery into Category:Pseudoscience

Merge - If anyone agrees there's no need to have seperate category ...

• Comment wouldn't Category:Medical pseudoscience be the correct capitalization for the first option? Mairi 07:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Medical pseudoscience per Loxlie and Mairi. I just noticed that Category:Quackery is a subcat of Category:Fraud. I think that Category:Medical pseudoscience should not be listed under "fraud", because not all pseudosciences are deliberate frauds; some are delusions or simply obsolete. OTOH, all quacks are frauds, by definition. Therefore, I'm changing my vote to Keep, with a second choice of rename per Mairi and remove from the "Fraud" supercat. --Quuxplusone 23:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It is now removed from the Fraud category. (Someone didn't understand what they were doing.) You are quite right. While they are often related, most quackery is probably practiced by innocents, ignorants, or true believers who aren't intent on defrauding anyone. BTW, not all quacks are frauds, at least not by intent. -- Fyslee 23:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Medical protoscience a subcategory of Category:Protoscience My second choice would be Category:Medical pseudoscience (I've changed my vote based on the concerns raised by Leifern below.) --Lee Hunter 14:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The material here isn't protoscience, its pseudoscience at best. JoshuaZ 17:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this would also cause revert wars sooner or later down the road. I think the point we are trying to make is that there are varying levels of controversy about certain practices that claim to have medical benefits, ranging from virtually undisputed (antibiotics for pneumonia) to overwhelmingly disputed (I don't know, voodoo) with lots of stuff in between. We run into all kinds of problems here - we might be accused of ethnocentrism if we slap a derogatory category on aryuvedic and chinese herbal medicine, people who are convinced that their particular practice really helps them, and then the whole issue of protoscience. I'd like to find a solution that forestalls another round on another term at some future date, as more and more editors get involved in Wikipedia. I have to consider this a while longer before I come up with a solution, but I'd recommend that we not just jump to another category. --Leifern 14:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Medical pseudoscience. -Sean Curtin 01:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Medical pseudoscience is just a euphemism; there would also be revert wars as true-believers crawl out of the woodwork to babysit the articles about their favorite schemes and scams. The category is useful and its title is the common word for its contents. Bkalafut 01:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Rename Bordering on keep Medical pseudoscience is reasonable. Aside from reasons already discussed, quakery is simply not that common a term. However, Bk is correct that renaming won't stop the POV warriors. JoshuaZ 01:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Agree that medical pseudoscience is simply a euphamism. Renaming would be weasel wording. Jefffire 10:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Just wanted to note that just about all of the people who have voted here (including myself) have been involved in a revert war regarding the use of the Quackery cat on the homeopathy article. It would be nice to hear from disinterested parties.--Lee Hunter 13:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This won't solve the problems, but the suggested solutions won't either. The conflicts will first end when editors accept the category for what it is, which is not a declaration that something actually is quackery, but that it is considered to be so by scientific critics and skeptics. That's in keeping with the NPOV policy here, and therefore any objections to its use are policy violations based on POV suppression. Category tags are only aids to help people find related topics. The category already contains subjects that are obviously not quackery (in fact anti-quackery), but that are related to the subject. A better solution would be a disclaimer automatically added to all category pages explaining the nature of categories: "Inclusion in this category is only an aid to finding subjects possibly related to the category topic. In some cases the relationship may only be peripheral. Bla, bla, bla....or something like that." Thereafter the only discussions would be if there was a relationship or not. -- Fyslee 23:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. The problem here is that POW warriors would probably want to include each and every article under the category Alternative Medicine under the Category Quackery. So what is then the point with this category? To add a few anti-quack entries to a long list of everything alternative? Another comment: As the term Quackery is derogatory it should require more than just that some party claims that X is quackery for inclusion in a list such as this one. The disclaimer in the beginning is easily missed and a sloppy reader will be misled into believing that all the entries in the list are quackery. A better way is to add relevant entries from this category to the list “List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts”. A new list with Medical Pseudoscience can be created. In this way each entry has to be justified. The five(?) anti-qauck entries in the Quackery Category can easily be cross-referenced by links in each article. MaxPont 15:46, 10 December 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was keep. the wub "?!" 12:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Film soundtracks into Category:Film scores

• Merge, I don't see a clear difference between these two categories. -- Robert Weemeyer 03:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Film score and Soundtrack are separate concepts. The cats may need to be reviewed to assure that the entries are correctly categorized. Otto4711 04:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. To answer the original point, a soundtrack contains music, dialogue, sound effects, etc - a score is simply the music with the other items removed. Grutness...wha? 04:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC) (but see also comment below)[reply]
• Keep Agree that there is a difference even if it's a subtle one.--T. Anthony 08:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, but the other way — into Category:Film soundtracks. While I agree with the technical point raised by Grutness, the ubiquitous term for soundtrack albums in the United States is "soundtrack album", even when no sound effects or dialogue are present.[2] If the term in other English-speaking countries is "film score album", then I will support a merge the other way, also. However, both cats are dealing with music albums; there's no "subtle difference" between score and soundtrack in this context. --Quuxplusone 20:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could live with that - you're right, the albums are usually simply called soundtrack albums. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - These are worth keeping separate. Maybe rename Category:Film soundtracks to Category:Film soundtrack albums and make sure articles on composers and film music in general go into the Film Scores category . JW 13:18, 1 December 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was keep. the wub "?!" 12:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Alumni of Trinity College, Dublin to Category:Trinity College, Dublin alumni

• Rename, The majority of alumni cats appear to have be formatted [Category:FullNameofUniversity alumni]. This proposal is in line with this format. Ohconfucius 03:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Looking at all the sub-categories in Category:Universities and colleges in Ireland it appears that the only alumni category in that form is Dublin City University, with all the rest in the "Alumni of" format. With one exception all the other categories seem to be using the "Something of the University Name" form over "University Name something". The university categories should be to a standard that works well for individual countries, not have some in a different format on a "one size doesn't really fit all". Timrollpickering 01:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. The presence of the comma makes Category:Trinity College, Dublin alumni look particularly ugly. Bluap 05:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think there may be an interest in adopting a common system. There seems to be a divergence on either side of the Atlantic. Please refer to Category:Alumni by university in the United States. Ohconfucius 10:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think to a large extent this stems from different styles. Looking at the Irish university categories in existance they largely look similar to the vast majority of UK ones. Here using a university name as an adjective feels very odd - see Category:Alumni by university in the United Kingdom and also for collegs Category:Alumni of the University of Cambridge. There's been small discussion on this at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories)#University categories though it's not yet taken off. Personally I think it's crucial that all the categories for an individual university use the same format rather than have things like "Chancellor of the University Name", "People associated with University Name" and "University Name alumni" (which is exactly what would happen with TCD, although it's slightly disguised as the Chancellor is for the University) just because the alumni category is in a different style to that used in a numerically superior country. Timrollpickering 12:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The current form is preferable in east-of-the-Atlantic-English. Osomec 18:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's a similar discussion further down at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 20#Category: University of XX alumni. Timrollpickering 12:31, 3 December 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 12:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Canadian Presbyterians, convention of Category:Canadian Protestants. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nom. Sumahoy 03:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Hawkestone 15:58, 2 December 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename to Historians of LGBT topics. David Kernow (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gay and lesbian historians to Category:LGBT historians

• Rename, except while I was doing the nomination I mistakenly created the cat, so it's really a Merge now. To match the parent cat Category:LGBT history. Otto4711 00:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. I have transferred the description on the cat page and narrowed the scope of application. Ohconfucius 03:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as an irrelevant intersection. Sumahoy 03:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the description, it's for people who study LGBT history, not historians who happen to be LGBT. The current/proposed names are ambiguous, tho. Mairi 04:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, irrelevant intersection. Mairi has an interesting point, but I don't think we should categorize historians by the sub-fields they study. Do we want Category:Mathematicians who study Cantor's Theorem? Category:Psychologists who study Freud? (Radiant) 13:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The cat is full of LGBT people who, because of their being LGBT, have spent their careers studying and documenting the history of a population that has been grossly underserved by mainstream academia. The idea that the intersection of the defining characteristic of "LGBT" and the defining characteristic of "historian" is somehow irrelevant is nonsensical and insulting. Otto4711 15:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your statement contradicts Mairi's statement. Maybe the two of you could discuss which is the actual purpose of this cat? No insult intended, but "LGBT history" is obviously meaningful, as is "people who study history", as is "LGBT people". Less useful are "people who study several kinds of history including LGBT history", "people who study only LGBT history but not other kinds of history", and "people who are LGBT and study several fields of history". (Radiant) 16:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Other than Vern Bullough (who may have been although I don't recognize his name) everyone in the cat is LGBT. I'm unaware of any non-gay historians who've done significant work in the field of LGBT studies. Generally, categories of people under the title "LGBT" refer to the orientation of the people rather than the work (c.f. Category:LGBT directors and Category:LGBT screenwriters). I didn't write either cat description. I intended for my cateory to be based on the orientation of the people and not the work and I'm kind of surprised at the notion that an LGBT people cat would be for the work and not the people. If the cat is intended to describe the orientation of the people then it's a clear keep and merge. If it's intended to describe the work then I remain unconvinced that categorizing historians by specialty or interest is a bad thing, but even if it is then the appropriateness of categorizing the people indicates that the proper course of action is to change the category description. If the category description can't be changed for some procedural reason, then I think that this nomination has to be withdrawn/closed because of the confusion over intent. Otto4711 17:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Normally, a sexuality-occupation category needs to be compatible with the principle articulated at WP:CATGRS, namely that if it's just an intersection of two independent traits, then it's not valid — there needs to be something specifically encyclopedic about the grouping to merit a category. "All historians who identify as LGBT" is a case of the former, as there's nothing encyclopedically or culturally significant about the set "historians who are LGBT". There is, however, something encyclopedically and culturally significant about the set "people who study LGBT history", which is why the latter is a more viable category. The difference in validity between the two doesn't hinge on whether non-LGBT historians existed who specifically studied LGBT history; it hinges on whether there existed historians who were LGBT but whose actual field of study involved some branch of history other than the history of the LGBT communities. That's what makes "all historians who identify as LGBT" more problematic; the encyclopedic grouping is "people who study LGBT history", not "LGBT people who study any kind of history whatsoever". Bearcat 08:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• To offer a concrete example, this category should be a parallel to categories like Category:Jewish historians which includes historians who are Jewish (whether they specialize in Jewish history or not) as opposed to being limited to people who study Jewish history. Otto4711 17:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Historians by field of study has many such examples, but it should be renamed for clarity to something along the lines of "Historians of LGBT issues". Tim! 18:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Although I think "LGBT historians" is sufficiently clear on its own I'm fine with this proposal except for the word "issues." Even though it's a little awkward Category:Historians of LGBT history better describes the field as well as being in line with the LGBT history naming scheme. Otto4711 19:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to something else per Tim! or Otto4711. How about "Scholars of LGBT history"? Both the current name and the one proposed by the nominator are ambiguous. --Quuxplusone 20:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I like "Scholars of LGBT history" or "Historians of LGBT issues" or something else of that type. Clearer on the intention. I wouldn't support a dedicated category for all historians who happened to be LGBT regardless of their particular study focus; that would fail Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality. Oppose original rename proposal; favour an alternative such as "scholars of LGBT history". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bearcat (talk • contribs) 2006 December 1 01:09 UTC.
• Rename to category:Historians of LGBT issues as that is a worthwhile grouping, but the LGBT historians is not. Osomec 18:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make that category:Historians of LGBT topics per Otto4711 below. Osomec 21:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to category:Historians of LGBT issues. Hawkestone 15:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or rename. -Sean Curtin 01:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Historians of LGBT topics or Category:Historians of LGBT subjects then. "Issues" is a poor word choice, as any number of things can be topics or subjects of historical research without being "issues," e.g. the history of gay bars or the relationship betweenEleanor Roosevelt and Lorena Hickok. Otto4711 21:33, 3 December 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 section.