Misplaced Pages

:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 19: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:43, 21 May 2008 editIntesvensk (talk | contribs)567 edits →Category:Queer studies← Previous edit Revision as of 07:58, 21 May 2008 edit undoSkoojal (talk | contribs)8,660 edits →Category:Queer studiesNext edit →
Line 288: Line 288:
:The word 'homosexual' was first promoted by sex reformers who were supportive of gay rights, as properly informed people are aware. The word 'queer' as applied to gay people originally associated homosexuality with madness, and still does to most people. To think that homosexual is generally considered more derogatory than queer is laughable. ] (]) 05:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC) :The word 'homosexual' was first promoted by sex reformers who were supportive of gay rights, as properly informed people are aware. The word 'queer' as applied to gay people originally associated homosexuality with madness, and still does to most people. To think that homosexual is generally considered more derogatory than queer is laughable. ] (]) 05:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
::I think you'll find that all this was true about thirty years ago but the meaning of words change. Today, the word "queer" is frequently used by those supportive of gay rights whilst homosexual is the preferred term of such groups as ] and ]. Without wishing to appear harsh, it seems that you are the only person here that doesn't realise this. You appear to be confusing "queer" as used by someone who shouts it as an insult and "queer" as academia or gay rights organisations are using it. If you would like me to find you some examples then I will.] (]) ::I think you'll find that all this was true about thirty years ago but the meaning of words change. Today, the word "queer" is frequently used by those supportive of gay rights whilst homosexual is the preferred term of such groups as ] and ]. Without wishing to appear harsh, it seems that you are the only person here that doesn't realise this. You appear to be confusing "queer" as used by someone who shouts it as an insult and "queer" as academia or gay rights organisations are using it. If you would like me to find you some examples then I will.] (])
:::'Those supportive of gay rights' - which organisations did you have in mind? What mainstream gay rights organisations are there that use the word 'queer' in their name or advocate calling gay people queers? That the word queer is generally taken as derogatory is what matters, not people's motives in using it, which are at best confused. ] (]) 07:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


==== Category:FIU Golden Panthers football players ==== ==== Category:FIU Golden Panthers football players ====

Revision as of 07:58, 21 May 2008

< May 18 May 20 >

May 19

Category:Mind sports

Category:Mind sports - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Duplication of existing category structure for games/sports. Recreation of previously deleted category with no substantial alteration. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, as soon as possible. Duplicate structure, as well as the focus of a single editor with his/her own idea that a game and sport are the same thing and thus should be duplicated everywhere. (Also suggest preventing recreation at least for a few months to editor loses interest.) 2005 (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree with the suggestion to block recreation of this category for some time period. This user has created many sock puppets for his/her purpose which can be seen here. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: The contents of the category have been removed, making it impossible to evaluate the merits of this CFD. At the very least, we need some sort of list of what was there. Without this info, I am completely in the dark. I can only guess that it perhaps duplicated Category:Games of mental skill? Cgingold (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Golf, backgammon, pool, table tennis, Go, Skat, Archery, Chess, .... basically any game or sport where you have to use your brain in any way. 2005 (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Judging by the information that has been supplied it does sound like this category is redundant or duplicative of existing categories, but I would much prefer to see the whole picture directly (and I know that I'm not alone). In the future, please take care not to preempt the CFD process by emptying out a category in advance. Cgingold (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use → Non-free

Category:Fair use sounds to Category:Non-free sounds
Category:Fair use music samples to Category:Non-free music samples
Category:Fair use music samples by artist to Category:Non-free music samples by artist
Category:Fair use video samples to Category:Non-free video samples
Nominator's rationale: To match the parent category (Category:Misplaced Pages non-free content) and to reflect the renaming of Misplaced Pages:Fair use to Misplaced Pages:Non-free content over a year ago (see log entry). –Black Falcon 20:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Antique albums

Rename Category:Antique albums to Category:Antique (duo) albums
Rename Category:Antique songs to Category:Antique (duo) songs
Nominator's rationale: To match the title of the main article: Antique (duo). In this case, there is a real possibility for confusion between "albums by Antique" and "collectable albums" or "songs by Antique" and "really old songs". –Black Falcon 20:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Ancient temples

Category:Ancient temples - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: A category for "ancient temples all over the world" seems unneeded, given the existence of the more specific categories found in Category:Temples (such as Category:Ancient Egyptian temples). –Black Falcon 19:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, though it might have been ok if done properly, splitting out some cats like Hindu, Buddhist etc. No prejudice to recreation. Johnbod (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

All sub-categories of Category:Concert tours

(except for Category:Warped Tours which refers to a proper noun)

Previous CFD decision resulted in the current title of Category:Country music concert tours to match the parent Category:Concert tours. I asked whether the sub-categories should follow the same convention, but anyone who may have read my comment chose to ignore it. Nominations follow. — CharlotteWebb 18:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

list of sub-cats (TL;DR)
Neat, eh?
  • Rename per nominator, for three reasons: (1) some of these titles may be confusing (e.g. "Prince tours"); (2) not everyone will immediately recognise all of these names as being those of musicians or musical groups; (3) having subcategories be consistent with their parent category reflects long-standing practice, and deviations from it could be a source of confusion for users who are not overly familiar with categorisation guidelines and practices. –Black Falcon 00:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Albert Edelfelt

Category:Albert Edelfelt to Category:Albert Edelfelt images
Nominator's rationale: There does not seem to be enough material in the mainspace related to Albert Edelfelt to justify an eponymous category. Since this category currently contains only images by Edelfelt, it should be renamed to reflect that and made a subcategory of Category:Images of paintings or Category:Images of art. The only category that is really similar to this one (that I could find) is Category:Vincent van Gogh images. –Black Falcon 18:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:University of Wisconsin alumni

Propose renaming Category:University of Wisconsin alumni to Category:University of Wisconsin System alumni
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category was proposed for merger to Category:University of Wisconsin-Madison alumni with a result of no consensus. Some months later an editor unilaterally redirected the category to the proposed target, I presume in good faith. There are currently five categories for alumni within the UW system: Category:University of Wisconsin-Green Bay alumni; Category:University of Wisconsin-Madison alumni; Category:University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee alumni; Category:University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh alumni; Category:University of Wisconsin-Platteville alumni. Others are possible, for the remaining schools within Category:University of Wisconsin System. I propose that the nominated category be renamed and repurposed to serve as a parent category for the various university alumni categories in the system, which was suggested at the previous CFD as well. Otto4711 (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Playboy Cyber Girls

Category:Playboy Cyber Girls - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Previously deleted back in 2006 (see Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_14#Category:Playboy_models and Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_2#Category:Playboy_Cyber_Girls.) Rather than speedily deleting as having failed two prior CfDs, relisting for discussion to see if anything has changed since then. Tabercil (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Italian-Irish people

Propose renaming Category:Italian-Irish people to Category:Irish people of Italian descent
Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency with other subcategories of Category:Irish people by ethnic or national origin, and because the current title is ambiguous. It is sufficiently confusing that at least one editor tried to redirect this title to (non-existent) Category:Americans with Italian-Irish ethnicity, and the majority of articles currently in the category appear to be about Americans, not Irish people. Nonetheless, the parent categories in which this was placed make it clear that it was intended to be about ethnic Italian people in Ireland. Russ (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "descent" is vague, ambigous, and overinclusive. The hyphenated term has a far greater contemporary usage. Hopefully, this will limit the cat the people that have lived in both countries or have an otherwise strong connection to both countries - the only way the cat is defining. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. The rename is far clearer and with either naming inclusiveness is limited by ability to provide sources. Mayumashu (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Mis-use due to confusion over criteria is a symptom of the current title. Reasonable people can variously interpret it as "Italian people in Ireland", "Irish people in Italy" or "people who are partly Irish and partly Italian regardless of location" (hence the mistaken inclusion of several Americans, such as De Niro). I would support a large-scale renaming, as I doubt this is the only category suffering this problem. — CharlotteWebb 20:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. Much clearer. The "Fooian Booians" format is an abomination. Good Ol’factory 22:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete another ambiguous unnecessary race/ethnicity category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Categories:Santa Catarina

Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: disambiguate necessary as there is a city by this name in Mexico as well as an island within this (Brazilian) state and various towns in Guatemuela and Mexico (see Santa Catarina). Mayumashu (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

New York places categories

Category:People from Riverdale, New York - Template:Lc1
Category:People from Greenwich Village, New York - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: This is a relisting of this CfD discussion based on the outcome of this DRV. Primary concerns with the category were overcategorization and lack of verifiability, but concerns were raised during the DRV regarding categorization of individuals from well-known neighborhoods that are not official political divisions, in the cases where verification can be provided. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep both. Both neighborhoods are unique and categorizing the people that have lived there is acceptable. People are routinly categorized by towns far smaller then these neighborhoods with thousands of inhabitants. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The existence of other categories for defined political units like towns does not serve as justification for these categories. "But this neighborhood is special!" is a dandy argument for maintaining a sourced list of notable residents, which can include information on how these notable residents contributed to the specialness of the neighborhood. Otto4711 (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Upmerge to city parent/Delete - I am saddened that we have to go through this all again, because the problems remain exactly the same and the arguments for keeping the categories remain arguments for maintaining a list. People can live in dozens of neighborhoods over the course of a lifetime and only in extremely rare cases are they defined as being "from" a particular neighborhood. Implementing a category structure on the basis of neighborhood will result in enormous category clutter and will deeply impair navigational utility by fragmenting the already heavily fragmented people from city category structure into tinier and tinier slivers. Yes, Greenwich Village is clearly a notable neighborhood (I know little about Riverdale). The notability of the neighborhood does not serve as justification for a category for residents. Not everything that is notable is categorizable, otherwise every article on Misplaced Pages would be eligible for its own eponymous category. A list of notable residents is far and away the best way to present this information, because it can include reliable sources for their residency and can also include information on what impact if any they had on the neighborhood and what impact if any the neighborhood had on them. Otto4711 (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I am saddened that we have to go through this all again, but all you've done is provide excellent reasons for eliminating the use of categories from Misplaced Pages in their entirety, not these specific ones. None of the tens of thousands of categories have sources to document the connections between the articles listed and the parent article. Misplaced Pages policy makes clear at Misplaced Pages:Categories, lists, and navigational templates, that "These methods should not (emphasis in original) be considered to be in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others." As Misplaced Pages policy supports both lists AND categories, it would appear that the argument presented is just an arbitrary WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Alansohn (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • No one but you seems to be hyperbolically suggesting that these arguments are in favor of eliminating all categories on Misplaced Pages. The arguments are in favor of eliminating two specific categories which will result in clutter and fragmentation. It appears that you are unable to distinguish between what is notable and what is categorizable. Not every piece of factual information about every person, place, thing serves as a good basis for a category and, as noted below in addition to my comments, being "from" a neighborhood can be a transitory thing. While lists, templates and categories are not in conflict with each other, there are certain organizational jobs that are better handled by each of them. In this instance, the information is best handled in list format because of the information that a list can contain that a category can't. Otto4711 (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm still trying to understand the argument. The fact that lists can have sources and categories can't, is an argument that applies to every single category; Why are these two categories different from all other categories in this regard? Why appeal to this as a justification for deletion, when this applies to all categories in Misplaced Pages? While people can and do move between different neighborhoods, people can and do move between multiple suburban communities, all of which would result in multiple categories for equally transitory stays. A simple standard exists, as proposed, which is to base the connection on reliable and verifiable sources establishing a connection between a notable and a municipality or neighborhood. Greenwich Village and Riverdale are two of a small handful of neighborhoods where it would be possible to establish meaningful connections between an individual and a neighborhood. It seems to make far more sense to create an objective standard that would establish people from categories based on the presence of strong sources, rather than a concern about shifting boundaries. Alansohn (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Unless that objective standard is reflected in the category name itself, it essentially doesn't exist, because no one has to read a category's description page to add the tag to an article. And generally the more you have to explain why someone is included in a category, the less value that category has. You miss the point about lists and categories. Not all groupings need sources to justify the inclusion of an item, or organization for those groupings to be meaningful (see my comment below on this point). In some cases, those groupings can be properly maintained as both lists and categories: a category grouping articles on everyone who held the office of U.S. President makes sense as readers are likely to want to navigate between them and they share a core definitional trait, for which inclusion is self-evident. A list also makes sense because it can organize those articles chronologically and provide additional information such as term dates, etc. (while a list that provided nothing more than alphabetical organization would be redundant to a category and should probably not be kept). A category grouping films considered the worst ever would not make sense because why a film was considered the "worst" and by whom would differ for each film. Only a list can provide sensible, meaningful context to that organizing concept. There is also the issue of slicing groupings too finely—"overcategorization." Any article could be categorized by thousands of traits that it shares with other subjects, and the more of these the article has the more useless they all become because they turn into noise. Actor articles used to get categorized by every TV series they had ever been on, which caused the articles to get flooded in category tags, and recurring cast to get grouped with one episode guest stars so that the categories themselves ended up being useless too. List articles instead allow the information to be preserved, with cast separated from guest stars and context as to specific appearances provided, all without causing a deluge on individual actor articles. Those of us criticizing these "people from " categories are making the same complaints—it will result in overcategorization as neighborhood categories proliferate, it will meaninglessly group those who had a tenuous connection to the neighborhood (and maybe a dozen others) with those whose public identity was tied to it, and it will group those who had associations of completely different natures. This is why categories are a bad idea here, and why lists are a good idea here; only lists can present the desired information while avoiding those problems. And yes, as has been stated in the prior CFD and the DRV, these criticisms all can be applied to all subnational "people from " categories, but those problems are present to a much lesser extent with municipalities because they have formal boundaries and people are more likely to have fewer and more stable, meaningful relationships with a municipality than with a neighborhood. So the existence of "people from " categories in no way dictates that "people from " categories be kept. Postdlf (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I would assume that "People from Greenwich Village, New York" could not be any clearer as to the objective standards for inclusion, without much additional explanation. My concern is that there seems to be little appeal to Misplaced Pages policy as to which categories should be retained and which deleted. My statement regarding objective standards was intended to clarify Misplaced Pages policy so that appeals to "judgment calls" can be eliminated. My other unaddressed concern relates to undercategorization. Categories with several hundred entries (e.g., Category:People from Manhattan and Category:People from the Bronx) are far greater barriers to navigation than when these can be broken down into meaningful subcategories, even if there is a small possibility of individuals falling into multiple subcategories; Few people are meaningfully associated with multiple New York City neighborhoods that could be supported by reliable sources. Category:American actors, with just short of 2,000 entries is even more useless as a category, let alone the nearly 275,000 Category:Living people. In a balance between overcategorization and the feared slippery slope of too many categories, is the proposed existence of a small handful of subcategories for those well-defined neighborhoods with reliable sources establishing individual connections to those neighborhoods to prevent the equally dysfunctional problem of undercategorization. I did not create either of these categories, but I still feel that a perfectly valid argument exists for their retention under Misplaced Pages policy and as a matter of improving navigation for Misplaced Pages users. Alansohn (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep both New York City has a handful of neighborhoods whose identity and boundaries are strongly defined and well-known. Greenwich Village and Riverdale are two such neighborhoods. In addition to meeting the textbook definition of the purpose categories are intended to serve, the problem of undercategorization has also been ignored. Both Manhattan and The Bronx have some 1.5 million residents and long histories of notable residents. Forcing all of these into mass categories by city or borough, each of which has nearly 500 entries, loses valuable information that can be obtained for the small number of neighborhoods where there is a clear definition of the area, a track record of notables associated with the area, and all of this supported by reliable and verifiable sources. Both Greenwich Village and Riverdale meet this criteria, and The New York Times, the national paper of record, is extremely helpful in documenting these areas, their notability and teh connection of notables to these neighborhoods. Parent categories exist for both neighborhoods (a claim that was associated with justifying deletion at the original CfDs), with a substantial number of entries associated with each. Lists and categories are NOT intended to compete with each other. Per Misplaced Pages:Categories, lists, and navigational templates, "These methods should not (emphasis in original) be considered to be in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa." As these categories meet all relevant Misplaced Pages policies, no justification exists for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Upmerge both. No one disputes that NYC, or other cities, have significant, notable neighborhoods worthy of documentation in Misplaced Pages. That's not the issue here. The issue is whether it makes sense to categorize people by their association with unincorporated and geographically small areas whose boundaries shift over time. It makes perfect sense to draw the line at municipalities, as those are objectively defined by the existence of a formal government and have formal, objective boundaries. And it's less likely that someone's connection to a municipality will be tenuous than to a neighborhood simply by virtue of size if nothing else (I myself have lived in three separate NYC neighborhoods in the past three years). I think these also put the cart before the horse, in that the neighborhoods' notability are more defined by who has inhabited them (whether distinct ethnic groups or historically significant individuals) rather than individuals' notability being defined by what neighborhood they are "from." We simply cannot say that every individual has a categorically significant relationship with a given neighborhood. For every Jane Jacobs who wrote about Greenwich Village extensively and lived there for decades, there is a Sarah Jessica Parker who...I don't know, bought a brownstone there or something? (the category had been applied to Parker's article with no mention of the neighborhood in the text...I think she was actually a West Village resident, but I digress) There certainly is "valuable information" on neighborhood topics (and I myself have written a number of articles on neighborhoods), but categories are a HORRIBLE way to preserve it, in that they lack any internal organization, annotation, and sourcing. DO IT IN ARTICLE TEXT. Explain it, source it, and organize it. Set forth who actually had a lasting impact on the neighborhood, and separate the chaff of those who just had a coincidental and trivial connection. Postdlf (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yet another argument for eliminating all categories, as a category simply cannot preserve any of the internal organization, annotation or sourcing that is possible in a list. Yet Misplaced Pages policy specifies that Lists and categories are NOT intended to compete with each other, stating at Misplaced Pages:Categories, lists, and navigational templates that "These methods should not (emphasis in original) be considered to be in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others." Your argument that "We simply cannot say that every individual has a categorically significant relationship with a given neighborhood" applies to any and every category, not just neighborhoods. Is there any Misplaced Pages policy that supports your choice for deletion, or is this an example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Alansohn (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Not all groupings require internal organization to be meaningful. To give a couple examples of clearly proper categories, all U.S. Presidents are equally U.S. Presidents, all buildings in Manhattan are equally buildings in Manhattan, so those are categorically meaningful relationships that will group like subjects. Being a U.S. President in and of itself merits an article, and buildings don't tend to move locations so those qualities are furthermore defining and will not result in a proliferation of clutter. But being associated with a neighborhood does not categorically define notability, and it is not categorically significant of individuals as one may be associated with a multitude of neighborhoods throughout one's life. I don't believe these neighborhood categories are proper classifications for biographical articles and I believe they hinder navigation. All of the criticisms I and others have given are valid ones that have always been recognized in CFD, as reflected in the WP:CAT guidelines. If you're asking for a policy that would expressly forbid this category, that's clearly not necessary. The application of general principles of good categorization to a particular category or category system of course requires a judgment call, which in my case comes from my four years of experience creating and dealing with categories. Does that necessarily make my position more valid than yours? No, but that's where I'm coming from, and I regretfully feel that you just are pushing the subject matter rather than thinking about general structural utility and organization. I love the neighborhood, but I hate the system of categorizing people by neighborhood for the reasons given above. Postdlf (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It is rather hard to understand that a direct appeal to Misplaced Pages policy is being overridden by a claim that you just "don't believe these neighborhood categories are proper classifications". While I appreciate your personal "judgment call" and your appeal to priority (or ownership) based on prior creation of some of these parent categories, that should carry zero weight in determining a matter of policy. As I am someone who has created and edited a substantial majority of the articles in the New York City categories, I would hope that you would deign to grant equal (if not greater) standing to actual policy, rather than personal whim. Your argument would have far greater weight in the future if the relevant Misplaced Pages policies were revised to match your position, subject to consensus, so that individuals creating categories need not be subject to an arbitrary standard that seems to be "I know in my gut which categories should exist and which shouldn't and you just need to accept it". Alansohn (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Alansohn, you are not advancing your arguments or this discussion. If you want to respond to the criticisms of these categories that others have set forth, please actually respond substantively and further explain yourself, rather than just throwing out straw man mischaracterizations of others' comments. That is neither civil nor productive, and it is not how CFD works, so please stop it. Postdlf (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I have referred to Misplaced Pages policy in advancing my arguments and I am not the only editor to advance these arguments. I have referred directly to the comments made as counterarguments. I have quoted directly from your statements to try to characterize and better understand your comments. If CFD decisions are based on "judgment calls", I am more than happy to "end this now". I would strongly recommend that if this is accepted practice at CFD, it would seem to be a rather counterproductive way to build consensus based primarily on an argument that "The application of general principles of good categorization to a particular category or category system of course requires a judgment call". Alansohn (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • (reset indent) Misplaced Pages:Categories, lists, and navigational templates is not a policy. It is an editing guideline. You have not made a policy-based argument. You have made a guideline-based argument. And frankly, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the guideline means. All the guideline says is that these three forms of navigation are not in competition. It's saying that the different systems complement each other. But if one form of navigation is unsuitable under actual Misplaced Pages policy or another guideline such as WP:OC, the guideline does not require that the unsuitable navigational form be utilized. The guideline does not mandate categories never be deleted in favor of lists. It does not mandate the existence of any category, list or template. Otto4711 (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Upmerge both per my comments at the DRV: clear overcat, while I could rant about the whole "people from" tree being an exercise in weasel words, "from" meanining whatever it means to any one at that moment in time, I will focus on its wholly inappropriate application to neighborhoods, which due to their notability have articles - rightly so; because it makes no allowance for whether someone "from" Greenwich Village has anything to do with whatever made the neighborhood notable. We don't have that issue with cities, towns, villages, settlements; they are inherently notable, so you can be from Detroit and have nothing to do with MoTown music or the auto industry, it's just where you're "from" (whatever that means), but being "from" Greenwich Village, or "from" The Castro, say, has an implied meaning that doesn't apply to everyone who meets someone's definition of "from" and gets dumped into the cat. The other reasons that this is overcat is that even if we could absolutely define the extent of these neighborhoods, which seems to be in flux and differs according to the period or whether the neighborhood is "in fashion or not" in real estate agents' parlance, people move around between and among neighborhoods with some frequency more than between various cities (especially given the liberality of someone clearly from a distant suburb being dumped into the category as being "from" the distant main town any way); it's transitory and having lived for a year or two in a particular neighborhood is probably trivial .... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep both. I am from Greenwich Village. If you're from New York, you'd pick that up after talking to me for two minutes -- you'd never think I'm from Bed-Stuy or even the Upper East Side. I have a friend from Bayside. Not Queens, Bayside; not Flushing, Bayside. Why do we care? Because this isn't a trivial matter of "oh, I live a couple blocks further that way than you." These are distinct neighborhoods, with populations in the tens of thousands, with histories going back 400 years. They are associated with specific schools, specific immigrant communities, specific Community Boards. The boundaries between them, despite all the idle discussions that New Yorkers like to have, are actually written down and followed. It's a relevant way to group people, just as relevant as the 134 separate governments of Pittsburgh or the 188 separate governments of The Twin Cities. Just because New York City unified their governments does not mean that their neighborhoods are any less real than Pittsburgh's or The Twin Cities'. --M@rēino 03:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, great arguments for maintaining a list of notable residents, so that their connection to and impact on the neighborhood can be documented from reliable sources. Otto4711 (talk) 10:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Darkwave groups

Propose renaming Category:Darkwave groups to Category:Darkwave musical groups
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other categories of bands. J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Rename per nom.--Lenticel 23:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:University of Maryland, College Park affiliates

Category:University of Maryland, College Park affiliates - Template:Lc1
Propose deleting Category:University of Maryland, College Park affiliates
Nominator's rationale: While the number of Misplaced Pages articles in this category was small, there are a large number of affiliates that could fall into this group. I instead broke this up into two categories, one is Category: University of Maryland, College Park research projects and the other is Category: University of Maryland, College Park research centers. I think these are more logical distinctions than the generic term affiliates, and both of these categories scale better if more articles are created. Jussen (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Queer studies

Category:Queer studies - Template:Lc1
Propose deleting Category:Queer studies.
Nominator's rationale: The term queer is derogatory. Skoojal (talk) 06:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
No doubt queer studies is a real phenomena, but not all phenomena have to have their own categories. Categories with offensive names must go. The queer studies article is a different question entirely. I don't think it needs to be deleted, because it doesn't look as though it's wikipedia endorsing the term queer. Skoojal (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
To be clear about it: I don't like 'queer' because it suggests insanity. That's a good reason for not liking it. Are there terms that would be less derogatory? Yes, almost anything would be less derogatory. Gay or even homosexual would do. Skoojal (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
While acknowledging your point of view. I also acknowledge that is it not a neutral point of view. You are exposing an underlying agenda of promoting a cause in your reasoning. Please see: WP:POV. "Queer studies" is an accepted academic term that represents "the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue." - Davodd (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I wonder why no one is responding to my point about how queer is offensive to most gay people? Just why do you think that what a small group of academics who do not represent most gay people and whose work may or may not be reliable thinks is what matters? Is this a conflict of interest thing? Skoojal (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that most of the gay people voicing opinion on this discussion are in support of keeping the name as is - as a reflection of what standard academics calls the field: Queer Studies. I'm sorry you find personal offense with the term, but Misplaced Pages is not censored to be non-offensive. Please see: WP:NOTCENSORED: "Misplaced Pages may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Misplaced Pages can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Misplaced Pages cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements." - Davodd (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that most of the gay people voicing opinion on this discussion do not represent gay people in general and that their views should not be what matters. Articles on wikipedia are not intended to be read primarily by academics; still less are they intended to be read primarily by academics who like calling themselves by a name that traditionally suggests insanity. I note that you have no comment on the conflict of interest question. Your point about offensiveness is not relevant - wikipedia policy specifically states that category names must not be derogatory. Queer is derogatory. Skoojal (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • You're wrong. Queer is a derogatory term and is understood that way by the large majority of gay people. That you may happen to like it is irrelevant; you cannot force other gay people to accept something that suggests insanity. So the reason given for deletion is correct. And while I note that this discussion is going against me thus far, I don't accept that this is a good reason for keeping queer. It violates the policy against derogatory terms in category names and should go. Skoojal (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a stupid question, but I'll answer it. Yes, I am gay. I've made this clear a number of times. Skoojal (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well my gay brother, I'm sorry that you felt the need to answer my question by calling it "stupid," but to the best of my knowledge I've never seen nor heard of you before so I simply wanted to get a better idea of whether you were speaking from within the community or not. Can you please link to the specific "policy against derogatory terms" to which you are referring? Otto4711 (talk) 10:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You are not my brother. It should be perfectly obvious from my edit history that I am gay - checking it would have been an elementary step. Regarding Misplaced Pages's policies, which you really ought to be familar with, see, Misplaced Pages:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality. Skoojal (talk) 04:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's not merely a "real phenomena" , it happens to be a widely used term that designates a real academic field of study. There's no reason for Misplaced Pages to shy away from using correct and accurate terminology that is based on actual usage in the real world. Cgingold (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Black people are sometimes called niggers. That is also actual usage in the real world. If that's not a valid reason for wikipedia having a category called 'nigger', and it isn't, then neither should there be a 'queer' category. Skoojal (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Very well said, Otto -- you've saved me the trouble of making those very points. Cgingold (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
LGBT - or whatever - would do just as well for arranging articles on gay subjects. Queer should not be used because it is offensive to average gay people. Speaking of the articles in this category, one of them is about conversion therapy. It is particularly inappropriate to have the word queer at the top of an article about how homosexuality has been treated as an illness. Skoojal (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
That particular article certainly does not belong in this category; it appears to have been removed already. Cgingold (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The only reason why it was removed was because I removed it. Someone else very likely has put it back by this time. It should go permanently. Skoojal (talk) 05:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
A point of clarification: The "world view" tag is there because the article comes up short on coverage of queer studies programs in other countries - not because of the name of the article.
Renaming the category would be fine. Skoojal (talk) 00:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The name is also US-centric. I don't know, but I doubt any UK or Australian universities call their courses this, All the examples cited below are American. Johnbod (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It is possible that the personal liking for the term is interfering with some editors' perceptions of the modern neutral reality. The term queer is considered derogatory by the large majority of gay people. That is what matters - not what a tiny sect of academics thinks (a sect evidently over-represented among wikipedians). Skoojal (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Please see: WP:POV. "Queer studies" is an accepted academic term that represents "the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue." - Davodd (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
No need to repeat yourself. Try considering your own POV issues. And how do you figure that what queer studies writers produce is reliable? Where is the proof of this? Skoojal (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:RS: Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals. Otto4711 (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This is irrelevant. Misplaced Pages policy states that derogatory terms shall not be used in categories. Queer is derogatory, its use by a minority of academics notwithstanding. Skoojal (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
In the spirit of WP:CHILLOUT, I've said my piece and am off to other projects. Additionally, I would like to thank you for having such a passion in your attempt to make Misplaced Pages better, even if I disagree with this one. - Davodd (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
"The term queer is considered derogatory by the large majority of gay people." I don't believe this to be the case. It's certainly true that "queer" was still widely considered derogatory 30 or more years ago, but things have changed greatly since then. I think this may to a degree be a generational issue. I know a goodly number of gay people of varying ages (not academics), and I think most of them would be puzzled by the assertion that the term "Queer studies" is beyond the pale. Cgingold (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
'I don't believe' - that doesn't amount to an argument. Perhaps there are people who think the n-word isn't offensive these days? Skoojal (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't an argument, it was part of an observation. It seems to me that the burden is on you to provide credible evidence to support your contention that, regardless of context, the term is so irredeemably offensive to a clear majority of LGBT people that Misplaced Pages would be obliged to avoid using it in any context whatsoever. Cgingold (talk) 08:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
'It seems to me' is also not an argument. Denying that queer is usually considered derogatory is stupid. I appeal to administrators to remove this category regardless of consensus because that is the right thing to do. Skoojal (talk) 04:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Widespread use in mainstream media! Extraordinary! There can't be a limit to the obvious falsehoods people will use an argument. There is no evidence of this and it is not true. Skoojal (talk) 06:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
No. It shouldn't be made a sub-category. The term shouldn't be endorsed by wikipedia in any way. Skoojal (talk) 06:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Queer studies" and "queer theory" are perfectly legitimate academic terms and are quite widely used. The word is not derogative in this context. WjBscribe 03:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course, but possibly rename to Category:LGBT studies if that name would be more internationally appropriate. -Sean Curtin (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep without a rename. Queer studies is, as many have said here, the name of an well accepted and established academic field of study, with departments named as such. The term queer and LGBTQ (with Q=Queer, and/or sometimes Questioning) is also seen outside of academia. For example, groups that use the word "queer" in LGBTQ centers here and this one, as well as many student support groups that use the word queer in their description or name, in universities such as: Arizona State U, Brown U, Colgate U, Connecticut College, U of Toronto (Canada), U of Chicago, U of NC, and so on. The New York Times (and others) report that the Venice Film Festival will be awarding a "Queer Lion" to the best gay themed movie . In fact, queer comes up over 1200 times in a site search on The New York Times since 1981. Yes, queer is seen as derogatory by some members of the gay community, and as a re-claimed term of self-empowerment by others. I don't see where one can say that the majority of gay people are offended by the term without references that support that, and all I've seen so far seem to support the opposite. Ultimately, it is up to the gay or LGBTQ communities to decide for them selves how they wish to be called, not others, including well meaning others. — Becksguy (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
So this is your evidence, is it? A general reference to academic departments, which of course do not represent most gay people. A handful of student support groups, which also do not represent most gay people. One reference to a queer award from a film festival in the New York Times. Ridiculous. Please remember that not all gay people live in major urban areas, the places where the above mentioned things go on - they live in rural areas or small towns where queer is a deadly insult. Skoojal (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: First of all, nobody denies that the word "queer" is still a very strong epithet in many settings. Secondly, let's be absolutely clear about something: nobody is proposing to use the word "queer" outside of this very specific context -- in other words, no serious editor would propose creating, for example, Category:Queer people. That would never fly. And lastly, the term "Queer studies" was most assuredly NOT invented by a Wiki editor: as has been referenced ad nauseum, it's a widely used name for real, functioning academic studies programs -- so in all fairness, any complaints should be aimed in that direction. If and when they decide to use a different term, the name of the category will undoubtedly be changed to reflect that. Cgingold (talk) 08:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
That queer is a strong epithet in many (actually most) settings is why it is derogatory, a perfectly sufficient reason for removing it. There is no reason why there has to be a category called 'queer studies' (it could instead be called, for instance, gay studies, a term also used in academic studies programs). Skoojal (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not an academic in this field and even I have heard of the term and find it in no way offensive. AS for being US-centric, the term is found in both the UK and in Sweden too and in neither places is it offensive "to the majority of gays". It has a very specific meaning that would be lost by a rename to LGBT studies.Intesvensk (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The term may be "found" there, but the ghits for "Queer studies course" London and "Queer studies course" England suggest there are none so titled, and
I think the reason for that is because Queer Studies forms a part of other subjects (for example English literature, history, sociology and especially something like gender studies) rather than being taught as a course in itself. If one searches google for queer studies modules then it can be seen that the subject is popular at many universities in the UK. Furthermore (for any one who speaks Swedish :) ) googling queerteori shows that it is a popular term there too. I was under the impression that "queer" had been "reclaimed" for the sole reason as to render it inoffensive. I would be interested to see evidence that the word still carries offensive overtones for so many people.Intesvensk (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Use "" in your search (round "queer studies") and the hits fall dramatically; most seem to refer to books etc. I couldn't see any UK modules even actually using the term, though I haven't searched the lot of course. Johnbod (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I did a quick search on some university websites for queer or queer theory and got hits: here, here, here, here, here, here and here I hope they provide some substance to the claim that "queer" is a pretty widely used term within British academia. If anyone would like further examples then I will be happy to find them.Intesvensk (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
No one, except the nominator, is saying it is not a widely used term. That does not mean it is the most commonly used term, which is what we should use for both category and article. I remain to be pursuaded that it is, in the US, let alone the UK. Only one of these would seem to lead to a certificate saying "Queer studies" to put on your wall. Johnbod (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it is hard to get a certificate with Queer Studies to put up on your wall, but I'm not sure that is the point. The reason for this is that, as I said above, Queer studies forms a PART of other courses, which I think my links show. I am unsure as to why it has to be the most popular term. It is a category that is distinct from LGBT studies and is therefore required. I suppose I would be happy with it as a sub-category, but it definitely needs to exist by itself.Intesvensk (talk) 07:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm certainly not an authority on the subject, but my understanding is that there is, in fact, a distinction between "Queer studies" and the somewhat broader term, "LGBT studies", as suggested by Intesvensk. That's one of the reasons I suggested above that we should consider the possibility of keeping Category:Queer studies as a sub-cat of Category:LGBT studies. Cgingold (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
But if you had both, which of the current 13 articles would you put in the subcat? Johnbod (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm having a hard time assuming good faith here. A few days ago, the nominator changed a lot of the uses of "gay" at Conversion therapy to "homosexual" . There was a brief flurry of reverting, reverting the reverts, and more reversion. The term "homosexual" is often considered derogatory, as I pointed out on the talk page Talk:Conversion_therapy#.22Gay_and_lesbian.22_vs._.22homosexual.22, with major media organizations recommending the term not be used and others conspicuously avoiding it. The nominators only rebuttal was that it was "not derogatory", no matter what they said. In that light, I have a suspicion there is a WP:POINT issue here, though I hope I'm just being overly suspicious. eaolson (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The word 'homosexual' was first promoted by sex reformers who were supportive of gay rights, as properly informed people are aware. The word 'queer' as applied to gay people originally associated homosexuality with madness, and still does to most people. To think that homosexual is generally considered more derogatory than queer is laughable. Skoojal (talk) 05:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you'll find that all this was true about thirty years ago but the meaning of words change. Today, the word "queer" is frequently used by those supportive of gay rights whilst homosexual is the preferred term of such groups as Focus on the Family and Concerned Women for America. Without wishing to appear harsh, it seems that you are the only person here that doesn't realise this. You appear to be confusing "queer" as used by someone who shouts it as an insult and "queer" as academia or gay rights organisations are using it. If you would like me to find you some examples then I will.Intesvensk (talk)
'Those supportive of gay rights' - which organisations did you have in mind? What mainstream gay rights organisations are there that use the word 'queer' in their name or advocate calling gay people queers? That the word queer is generally taken as derogatory is what matters, not people's motives in using it, which are at best confused. Skoojal (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:FIU Golden Panthers football players

Propose renaming Category:FIU Golden Panthers football players to Category:Florida International Golden Panthers football players
Nominator's rationale: spell out initialism per convention and drop the word 'university' per convention for American university sportspeople cat pages Mayumashu (talk) 05:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Do keep in mind they have nothing on the Maryland Terrapins 69.143.226.129 (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Operating system remakes

Propose renaming Category:Operating system remakes to Category:UNKNOWN
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The only ghits for this phrase are derived from the wiki (note the singular form has 0 ghits) and the use of the word "remake" to describe this type of OS software is obviously not in popular vernacular. It describes operating systems that have been built to be compatible with existing, well-known commercial operating systems. I am tempted to suggest Category:Reverse-engineered operating systems but I'm not sure if this would apply in every case, and it leaves some ambiguity as to whether the category was for an OS produced by reverse-engineering, or for an OS that has been reverse-engineered. Suggestions would be lovely. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • UpMerge to Category:Operating systems. This is a problematic category for several reasons, not the least of which are the legal questions about derivative works (Noting, of course, that IANAL.) This just seems to cry out for references/citation, which is not typically possible when using categories. - jc37 05:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Gaming operating systems

Category:Gaming operating systems - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete This category is basically an attempt to generalize Category:Game console operating systems, itself kind of a premature category because these operating systems are rarely notable when detached from the game console itself. Anyhow, the category in question includes three much broader categories, for DOS, Windows, and Linux (no Mac?), using the criteria that "many games are ported to these platforms", which is really just a narrow, domain-specific way of saying "a lot of software is made for these platforms" or "these platforms are popular". It is non-defining, as none of these operating systems are expressly for games, and what qualifies as "many games" is POV. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Location map templates Netherlands

Propose renaming Category:Location map templates Netherlands to Category:Netherlands location map templates
Nominator's rationale: Rename. All similar categories use the more grammatical form "Foo location map templates". Grutness...wha? 02:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:People from São Carlos (city)

Propose renaming Category:People from São Carlos (city) to Category:People from São Carlos
Nominator's rationale: there are no states, counties, cantons, departments, provinces, etc. with this name and therefore the disambiguate "(city)" is wholly unnecessary Mayumashu (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
this would mean working towards establishing precedent for every city to be followed by a country (Category:People from Paris, France, Category:People from Detroit, Michigan, United States a lot of extra wordiness and clutter - if you don t know where it is, typing it into search and pushing Go is easy enough Mayumashu (talk) 01:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Now how exactly does a single added word equate to "a lot of extra wordiness and clutter"? And why on earth not spare all of our readers the bother of looking up each and every unfamiliar city they come across when we can easily provide that info in the category name? I have yet to receive a good, direct answer to that question. Cgingold (talk) 02:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
and you would persume to know which cities are and which are not well-known? Mayumashu (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Huh???? What's that supposed to mean? More to the point, when is anybody going to answer the bottom-line question? Cgingold (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
How is it to be determined which ones are and which ones are not in need of adding the name of the country? That is the answer to your "bottom-line question", as you put it. The only NPOV answer to my reply to your question is every single one, wouldn t you agree? Mayumashu (talk) 04:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:My Gym Partner's a Monkey

Category:My Gym Partner's a Monkey - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Only holds two articles, seems a little redundant as it won't actually grow. treelo talk 00:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)