Knowledge (XXG):Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 5

5041:), because this would result in articles being classified by mere trivia, and eventually cause category tags to swamp the article content. Instead, categories should be limited to the most useful in both classifying the articles and aiding navigation to the most significantly related articles. We should aim to only maintain categories that are integral to article subjects, such that the fact or relationship being documented would generally be important enough to be mentioned in the introductory paragraph. For this category, it should be asked whether modelling in the magazine defines the individual's career in the same manner as being a Playboy Playmate, about which I do not have an opinion. But models of any stripe should not be categorized merely by every magazine in which they've ever appeared. 5058:. As I said, if we went through all the categories using "defining characteristic" as the standard than IMHO the vast majority of them would fail that standard. As for this particular category, some of the men listed used the magazine as a springboard to other fame, some were the subject of controversy after posing, some are celebrities and thus unusual since male celebrities don't pose nude as readily as female celebrities and some are otherwise not particularly notable. Probably, I imagine, much like the Playboy models who're listed in that category. It's just as reasonable to believe that someone would be interested in an encyclopedic listing of Playgirl models as it is that someone would be interested in an encyclopedic listing of Playboy models. 1825:

having served on an Alabama state court by virtue of his inclusion in the category. I have only found a handful of federal judges so categorized since the state judges categories were created, which means that the categories are largely being applied only as state court categories, and which consequently means anyone included is probably going to be presumed to have served on a state court. If you can think of a completely clear supercategory to include both Alabama state court judges and federal judges who sat on courts within the state of Alabama, let me know, but the current category is not it, and isn't being used as such on the whole.

5656:

reading a morning newspaper with a topless lady next to the morning headlines. Its very high profile, encyclopedic as a category (they either were or weren't - no grey area unlike Playboy: did they feature as a centre fold or just a feature model?), and as a category rather than a list allows users to quickly move between different british model-focus sections. If we were talking about the Sport newspaper models (who allow those with silicone enhancement), then I would be agreeing with deletion. But this is much like suggesting we dump the pound for the Euro! Rgds, -

6512:." Dividing LGBT cats into lesbian cats and gay cats is just another way of dividing by sex which, as you and I well know, is not forbidden but should be avoided if there's not a valid reason for it. Looking at the people listed at the lesbian actor and gay actor cats, there are very few if any who define themselves or their creative output by sex in the way that a woman poet might. I don't see a valid reason for subdividing LGBT actors by sex, any more than there's a valid reason for subdividing heterosexual actors by sex. 1166:. I quite respect your right to make alternative proposals, but it does seem to me to be unhelpful to to take an existing proposal which has achieved a degree of consensus and make new proposals which do not include the options which have been already discussed with support from all participants. To avoid a real mess, may I ask you to withdraw your nominations so that we can make new CFDs which offer all the options? -- 5734:

showing their large breats in a UK tabloid is a keeper but an equivalent category for men who've posed nude--itself a much more rare occurrence than that of women posing nude--is about to get deleted because the very same people who voted to keep the category for women with big titties also voted to delete the male cat. Frankly, the rarity of men, especially celebrities, posing nude make the cat

2261:- First of all, these are characters in comic books (not in all fiction, though I suppose that may come later), so renaming might have been in order. However, "animal-based" characters, whether insects, bugs, spiders, snakes, cats, or whatever, all sound like GREAT lists, but not-so-great categories (some aren't obvious by the article name, for example). - 2139:, that character's motif was made an owl, not another insect. The groupings just aren't any more meaningful than if you were to categorize characters by costume elements (cape or no cape?), and in most cases this is simply going to be a categorization of characters who have insect forms on their costumes (as the category description invites). 6373:, the difference between lesbians and transsexuals is an enormous one. I think the LGBT people categories need to be eliminated; it makes sense for equal rights efforts to form an alliance of non-mainstream gender/sexuality identities together, but not for biographies. The conglomeration just ends up laughably uninformative. 6069:

Why would you lump lesbian actors into bisexual and transexuals? A subcategory of LGBT yes, but not eliminate where the orientation is clear. As above the cited "policy" is a convention/guideline, not a policy. There's nothing that forbids categorization by sex if there's a valid reason for doing so.

5682:

It may seem odd, but it's true. Playgirl has nowhere near the cachet of Playboy. There really aren't very many of these that make the cut: We deleted "Pirelli Calendar models" recently, and I'd vote to delete ones for Penthouse and Black + White if they came up. I'd say the keep list is Playboy, Page

2188:

this recreation of previously deleted category. This one has inadequately defined criteria for inclusion. This category invoked speculative POV in some cases. Do you really know what the character was based on? Did you ask the creator? Spme characters are not based on insects but are merely named for

1824:

You're still not understanding the issue. "Alabama judge" strongly suggests state court affiliation, yet is just ambiguous enough that someone may mistakenly think a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Alabama belongs there. That federal court judge will then be mistaken by many as

1814:

Are there then going to be categories for judges within a state who are not "state court judges"? If so then I withdraw the objection (heh, that's lawyer talk), otherwise the categories as they stand are better choices so as to include anyone who's a judge in a particular state and not just those who

4590:

because the two are not gender-neutral (see example in guideline of "Kings" and "Queens" versus "Monarchs"). The question should be whether or not there is a valid reason for categorizing women poets and given the number of women poets who write mostly or exclusively about women's issues and women's

3634:

shortly after the category system was implemented; worth a read-through for the rationales. I believe that the actual lists aren't kept on Knowledge (XXG) because of copyright concerns, as the "100 sexiest" whatever lists are formed from the creative decisions of editors as to who gets included and

1204:

The question of a reply on my talk page is secondary: this CFD was running, and my first priority was to try to get al options on the table simultaneously. I fail to see how your suggestion of letting this run its course first woukd help, unless you do not want the other option to be considered? I

1046:

and the proposal in this CFD. I will not attempt myself to formulate the case for Smerus's propsals, and will invite Smerus to edit bthe proposal to make that case in his/her own words. Please bear with me for 30m minutes or so, because it's a little complicated, trying to make sure that it all ties

5668:

I'm fascinated that a number of the people who voted to delete the Playgirl models category with comments like "people shouldn't be categorised by the magazines they appear in" and "it only takes a few hours to do a photo shoot" and "not a defining characteristic" are voting to keep a category for

5655:

I can understand the logic of nomination, but to a Brit (whatever your views on topless photo's), this is much akin to a non-Brit nominating Playboy for deletion. For a country with non-Prostitution laws and before the American lap-dance clubs came here, it must have be amazing to non-locals to be

825:

in the interests of clarity; the proposed title reflects the apparent intention of the category. Many of the MPs listed here are not from English consituencies in their origins (for example Tony Blair , who is 'from' Scotland) but they do 'represent' English consituencies. An alternative renaming,

243:

doesn't, and neither do we have "Wars of the Mongol states", "Wars of the NATO states", etc. (2) "Balkan states", like "Baltic states", carries a political connotation of a smaller group of states than the geographic term "Balkans" or "Balkan peninsula" denotes. Greece in particular comes to mind;

5733:

Oh please. Have you read some of the articles in this category? Yes, there are some who've done something else besides bare their bosoms on Page 3 but I pulled up several at random and a lot of them were "so-and-so is a model, notable for having very large breasts." A category for women known for

4581:

Keep is largely because I don't think the stated reason for the nom is valid. The cited "policy" is a convention/guideline, not a policy. There's nothing that forbids categorization by sex if there's a valid reason for doing so. The convention you site might apply if there were categories called

2189:

them. What does "based on" mean? And how could this possibly be a useful category? Whatever meager worth is has can be covered by a simple list, which can be properly annotated and broken down by the different ways the characters are "based on" insects (name, powers, appearance, mating habits).

6487:

Why lump all gay actors into a group category with bisexual and transexuals? As above the cited "policy" is a convention/guideline, not a policy. There's nothing that forbids categorization by sex if there's a valid reason for doing so. Were there an equally accepted term for male and female

1024:

this proposal if the category to be considered with other similar categories as advised - but can someone more nimble than I please draw up the new cover-all proposal? - and make sure that it avoids using the ambiguous 'from'? I believe that 'representing'is the least ambiguous alternative.

2993:. These are not television manufacturing logos, they are logos for TV program productions/companies. The disambiguation between the unit and the programs is "TV" for the programs and related, and "television" for the unit itself. (Note that even the associated template uses "TV".) - 1572:, but only because all four of those included articles only have about one paragraph's worth of content, and so need to be merged (if anything is left) and redirected to the parent article (which can easily accommodate the character descriptions) for lack of independent substance. 329:. Balkan is not the isolated homogennous hellhole with string of closely related wars as the category suggest. To list together every war and conflict on area of Romania, Greece, Albania and half a dozen of medieval empires promotes absurd view on history, good only for a tabloid. 6750:

There are already other categories for lesbians, bisexuals, and transexuals, I believe. Therefore I think it would be a mistake to merge gay actors into LGBT actors, unless you were also planning to merge the other categories as well. As someone said above, they proposed deleting

979:

I should have added that I share the concen about "from" being an inappropriate word in this category name; my objections are that there are other issues worthy of attention in these category names, and the relevant categories should all be considered together (the full list is:

447:

If anyone should have such a category, it's Weird Al, but his parodies still do not become a definitive part of the original song. A list of parodies by...parodist (?) and a list in each song article of notable covers and parodies is the best way to present this information.

189:

by location. The common theme in this category is that the participants were located in the Balkans, not that the fighting itself took place there (which applies to a great many other wars); hence, the desire to use "of" rather than "in". I suppose we could just change it to

4604:

to be correct? Why is the gender of a poet important? If we need a category for 'poets who write mostly or exclusively about women's issues and women's experiences' then we should create that, but this category does not serve that purpose. It just serves to split out women.

1913:

on the assumption you will take care of that. (I think the point about federal judges is already made in the category text, quite adequately, and that no change the name of the category is really necessary; it will just substitute different issues which need to be clarified.)

1887:

I really don't understand your comment (nor how it relates to Otto4711's comments above)—why wouldn't state trial court judges be put in a state court judge category? "District court" and "superior court" are simply the titles many states use for their trial courts.

1201:

Jc37, see above: I made the new CFD with the prior support of the nominator, who agreed to withdraw this CFD if a new CFD was made so that the pre-existing propsals could be considered alongside this nomination. That has been done, and as a result this CFD is now

418:, do not rename; we don't want song articles flooded by categories for everyone who has ever covered or parodied them, and those subsequent derivatives do not redefine the original song (but if it isn't deleted, renaming per nom is better than keeping it as is). 3395:, This category should clearly be renamed (it's contents are "Bands in which the lead vocalist is also the bass player.", quite an interesting category I think so I'm not proposing deletion). However I'm not sure what it should be called so over to the floor... 981: 2173:

The idea of animal motifs? Yeah, comic book creators have commonly used animals of all kinds for visual appeal, for catchy names, and to ostensibly explain certain superpowers. But please address the arguments as to why this doesn't work as a category.

1849:. As long as it's clear that the cats include judges within the state at all levels other than federal then I don't really care what it's called. If someone mistakenly slips a federal judge into the state category, well, then, that's why we have editors. 6547:

I guess as I think dividing actor categories by sex is itself sensible. Also if these "sexual orientation of actors" categories must exist lumping them all together into "LGBT", a term many people still are unfamiliar with, is probably not the way to

6106:

1941:

Each state has its own names for what it calls its trial courts, intermediate appellate courts, and court of last resort, so the generic "state court" is the only catch-all term. It's also the clearest term to use as an opposite to "federal court."

5719:

used in POV arguements (like this one). However, it's at least justifiable, to base their vote/comments/opinion on it. Personally, I think we should delete the models from SI, and Playboy, as well, but that's not what's being nominated atm. : ) -

2233:. a category with too many characters with too little real connection. You might as well have Category:Comic book characters with names beginning with the letter Y. You would get a similar grouping with just as little connection to one another. 1695:- The category collects characters from a television series and follows standard naming conventions. The only problem is the resulting unintentional interpretation of the category name. The explanation in the category clarifies its purpose. 1877:

There are too many judges called "district court judges" and "superior court judges" the like who wouldn't be put into the categories if renamed as proposed, and that's more of a problem than some federal court judges getting put in there.

989: 993: 812: 997: 1859:

If you "don't really care what it's called," does that mean you're no longer opposing the rename, which is intended to make it even more "clear that the cats include judges within the state at all levels other than federal"?

244:

Balkan states, to me at least, carries the connotation of transition economies, those states that were until recently Soviet satellites. Greece is something of an outlier, so if we want to include it, we should say "Balkans."

1041:

I am very grateful for Smerus's generous offer to withdraw this nonination. I am in the process of creating a new nomination to cover all the categories, and incoprorate both the proposal made for peliminary discussion at

3684:

Furthermore Maxim produces a different list in each country where it has an edition each year, so this tag might end up on thousands of articles, but one would not know which Maxim Hot 100 was relevant (as if it matters).

2133:(a scientist who develops a shrinking chemical and a helmet that can communicate with insects), despite the fact that both beetles and ants are insects. I also think it's telling that when the Blue Beetle was parodied in 498:- This was tougher to decide on than I had originally thought. Yes Weird Al has had songs and albums consistantly on the international charts, and so there really isn't a comparison there. However, I tend to lean towards 4565:. Note, I am not doing an umbrella nomination since I believe that these categories must be considered on a one on one basis. If someone thinks that they all should go, then feel free to do an umbrella nomination. 1183:

that those who comment here will be able to determine consensus, whatever it may be. In any case, once the existing nominations have run their course, I don't see why you cannot then nominate your proposal for using

3667:

is ok since they are not listed in the same "top" order. However, everyone and their cousin has a "top x" list these days... Not to mention, I seem to recall that we also frown on model categories. So I think

1004:). Note that the last cat in that list (hich is he only one I created) uses "for" instead of from, and the creator of the other categories supports my suggestion for a shorter conssitent naming structure. -- 4242:

to the discussion here as the date of the category is already set and is not at issue: the nomination is about inclusion of the word "seasons" to make the title consistent with other similar categories.

4375:

Comedians are often rather gender-specific in their source of material. (Even a comedienne complaining about a girlfriend is usually going in a different direction than a male comedian talking about his

5669:

models based on a newspaper they appeared in after a photo shoot that, I assume, took a few hours to shoot. Interesting that an appearance in Playgirl isn't defining but an appearance on Page Three is.

1971:

to 'American state court judges by state'. When we have categories broken out 'by state' then the category name includes 'by state'. In this case, it would be: 'American state court judges by state'.

6141:

in this category, whose article never uses the word "actress." Granted in actual reality "male actor" would be deemed redundant to most folks, but Knowledge (XXG) is correct going by the dictionary.--

6355:

Why wouldn't there be if this cat is merged? Categorizing by sexual orientation isn't the same as categorizing by sex. "Lesbian" and "gay" categorize by non-heterosexuals by sex. "Bisexual" doesn't.

930:

Try as I might, I can't seem to find anything controversial about the actual nom (the alternate, on the other hand, would seem to be opening a can of worms that I think we should avoid). Nice job : )

959:

for an explanation of the context and a suggestion for renaming them all consistently. I would like to ask the nominator to withdraw this nomination and to explore the issues a little further at

4614:

Perhaps. In modern times poetry is sometimes seen as unmanly. Likewise there are poets who deal with specifically male issues. I believe there was a Welsh poet who wrote paeans about his penis,

5767:, should go because simply having posed for Playboy is not categorically career-defining in the way that being a Playmate is; such women are always referred to as a "former Playboy Playmate." 1905:

Maybe a well-written text in the category's text itself will take care of the problems Otto4711 and I have pointed out. After all, we have to deal with New York's "Supreme Court" judges in

2121:) and the same reasons apply to this one (speedy delete it?). Categorizing by motif is not useful or instructive because the relationship is too superficial. The Charlton Comics version of 2018:

all per nom, though I similarly don't have strong feelings about the mother category. My stronger opinion is about the subcats. I'm similarly confused by whether Otto is opposing or not.--

6591: 6508:

I said in my nom that it was a guideline and not a policy. The "equally accepted term" that includes male and female homosexuals that seems to be in usage throughout Knowledge (XXG) is "

1982: 1906: 1267: 1065: 1061: 797: 49: 44: 6872:

When I mentioned there is already a list, that just means that there is no need to create a list article. If there hadn't been a list already, I would have suggested creating one. --

6702: 6346: 6314: 5345: 434:, it is the perfect precedent for both a naming convention and for Postdlf to consider. We're not talking about a high school garage band, this is college level garage band. ;) — 143:, both of which are in the category? Although I don't know much about southeast European history, I don't think that those can be classified as wars of "Balkan states"; can they? 3815: 4937:

Withdraw my position. If the models cat is going we don't need the parent cat. I don't know how career defining an appearance in this magazine is so I don't wish to comment. --

2118: 6463:. And yeah, I get the irony that I've argued in favor of keeping sex-based categories before, but in this instance the category fails the classification by gender guideline. 3260:, Limited category that can be discussed entirely within one article if desired. All topics also relate to Meteorology, so opted for the merge into parent instead of delete. 2002:

which is certainly a mixed bag of names: some with 'by state'; some not. I don't know which way the trend is going, but the American people categories seem to be 'by state'

1225: 985: 1932:- I strongly support the intent of the nomination in clearing up ambiguity. I have to ask though: Is "state court judge" the accurate term? Is there another term/title? - 816: 3631: 4420:- Just an observation. It would seem that women in entertainment (actresses, comedienes, and sports), or "gender-specific official title", tend to garner more votes of 5522:. In the United Kingdom, Page Three Girls in the most popular newspaper in the country (even if it is a rag!) are very notable and in a very recognisable category. -- 1001: 4238:. This is POV because my belief is that the overwhelming majority of people consider the 21st century to have begun on 1 January 2001. The point is in any case 1339: 1211:, which seems a real pity. It would be so much more straightforwrad for all involved to just put all options on the table together and discuss them together :( -- 2607:, it would seem that this is about actors on stage. I am thinking "in acts" means that they were a part of an "act". (compare to being a part of an act on the 955:: this category is one of a series of categories relating to UK MPs. They should be considered together, and named consistently. Please see the discussion at 6851:

Having a list is no reason to exclude a category of the same name. A category takes you from article to article, through connections that aren't obvious. The

5897:

as it is generally impossible to prove if a river was named after a woman. There are probably case where a woman's name was based on the name of a river. --

6859:

you go to the article on American Masters. With the category you can go from Charlie Chaplin to Louis Armstrong. Is there a rule that if you have a list you

1389: 1373: 1318: 4562: 4322: 2990: 6137:"Actor" is considered a gender neutral term. The term "actress" I believe is even seen as demeaning by some Wikipedians. Hence there are a few women, like 603:

who are they? Comparing nobodies to Wierd Al who is an international star who covered numreous artists to these guys is ridiculous. At best a list. Rgds -

6900:

as the title is meaningless. Master of what? My first thought was that it must be misnomer for the US Masters golf tournament. Pointless category. --

2423:, there are enough Ali G specific-entries to justify it, such as the episode list. A better solution might be to create a Cohen category as a parent. 5024:

model catageory. What is with this "defining characteristic" business? If that were the standard then 80% of the categories on here would be deleted.

6923:

bio was significant enough to the subject to be mentioned in his/her article, then going to that article will enable navigation to other subjects of

1517: 6919:

biography made is not a defining characteristic of the subject; 2) the unelaborated, context-less title is meaningless as a category name. If the

1955:. In everyday legal practice as well, it's the most obvious term to use to make it clear that one is not talking about federal court in the U.S. 172:

as is. This is about wars in the area called the Balkans, about which there is an article and category, both named 'Balkans', not 'Balkan states'

21: 2611:

stage. This would seem to be a new creation, so I might suggest giving some time for this to see where it's going before we arbitrarily delete. -

5038: 1595:

not EVEN trivia. Knowledge (XXG) is supposed to be an encyclopedia. This would be an appropriate category for a puppet encylopedica. Maybe. -

4931:); with the subcategory that's quite enough for it to be useful, and I daresay there are other articles which could be categorised there too. -- 1999: 1179:

The pity is that you chose to not respond on your talk page, but instead decided to start a duplicate/counter-nomination? I would like to have

431: 4737:(or is it poet feminists?) which would be a restructure at the very least. (And I think that would be masculinist, rather than masculist?) - 3124: 3920:

about the dumbest category I have ever heard of, and would set a dangerous precedent. What next, fictional people resident on Mars? Rgds, -

1986: 6939:- While rather interesting, I think it is better served as a list. (Can you imagine a category listing everyone who's has a "biography" on 4002: 3179: 3163: 3143: 3093: 1767: 5074:

Doing a shoot for a magazine takes a few hours, and some people have been in hundreds of magazines. It is not a career defining category.

3994: 2455:

and other characters/productions are. At present there is no Sacha Baron Cohen category, making this an illogical first creation. Rgds, -

2099: 17: 2091: 6864: 6668: 3481:, isn't consistent with how the category describes itself or where it's filed in the category tree. Such a category would not belong in 1781: 1335: 661: 916:

per nom. The alternative suggestion will not do as this category is specifically for the post 1801 period, not all eras of Parliament.

153: 6655: 6282: 5089:

does not represent a defining characteristic and without it there will be insufficient justification for the existence of the parent.

4674:

This was not nominated to be politically correct. I think that PC is a bunch of <insert the 4 letter word of your choice here: -->

5635:

showed me how incorrect I was. However, I wonder if it should be deleted as well? (See also the Playgirl models discussion above.) -

5341: 4018: 3985: 5034: 3045:

per nom. The convention against using abbreviations trumps any misguided "convention" created by a few people working in one field.

2082: 6957: 6714:, the difference between gay and transsexual is enormous. See further comments in above nom for merging lesbian actors category. 5696:

It doesn't seem "odd." It seems hypocritical. And the amusing thing is that I'll bet not one of them recognizes his own hypocrisy.

1188:. No harm, no foul, and life goes on, everyone's happy. As it stands now, I think I'd like an uninvolved admin to sort this out. - 119:, more accurately reflects the actual contents (as noted in the category description) and matches the common naming convention for 6525:

Strongly diagree as LGBT includes two orientations that do not apply to either male or female homosexuals so it is less specific.

1096:

that those other nominations were made to rename the categories without offering as an option the names which achieved support at

219:

to reflect contents (and per convention for the categorization of wars at WP:MILHIST). Although I have no real preference between

6211: 5578: 3501:

for consistency with the other similar categories. Landolitan, a singer with a bass vocal range is called a bass, not a bassist.

1226:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#One CFD withdrawn needs closing, other CFDs apparent bad faith by User:Jc37

239:

to "Wars of the Balkans". Why should we not use "Balkan states"? (1) That would make this the only category which uses "states".

4424:

than other gender-split categories. That said, recently most of the actress categories were merged to actor due to consensus. -

4222: 4121: 5355: 1458: 1254:- If one were to discount my comments and BrownHairedGirl's comments, I wonder if there is a consensus one way or the other? - 1162:

Jc37, I think it's a real pity that you made all the other nominations without including the options which achieved support at

691: 253:

Well, to be a stickler for history, Bulgaria and Romania were the only Balkan countries that were ever Soviet satellites. See

3147: 2867: 2312: 1625: 27: 5841: 3775: 1466: 842:- I've tagged these other 5 categories to change "from"/"for" to "representing", as well, per BrownHairedGirl's comments. - 2725: 1502:

below (thank you for the clarification). May need to merge into one article to avoid fancruft anyway, but that's for AfD. -

574:—I just wanted to clarify that, in the event that there is not a consensus to delete, no one opposes the rename, correct? 397: 6805: