Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 24

< June 23	June 25 >

June 24

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:American Iraq War killed in action

Propose renaming Category:American Iraq War killed in action to Category:American military personnel killed in the Iraq War

Nominator's rationale: The current name makes no sense (at least to me) when reading it on it's own. What does it refer to without looking at the articles within the cat? Soliders? Journalists? Tourists?! It does make some kind of sense when I go up a level to it's parent cat Category:American military personnel killed in action, and if the result of this CFR is rename, then I'll nominate the other 8 subcats of that cat. Hopefully I've made some sense here...! Lugnuts 14:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gallantry Medals

Category:Gallantry Medals - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Following discussion at WP:ODM, I nominate this category for deletion. This category is at odds with the existing categorisation scheme for medals and decorations, which divides medals both by country and according to whether the medal is civilian or military in nature (cf. Cateogry:Civil decorations and Category:Military decorations). This category seems to group together all medals, without any sort of division or distinction. Xdamr^talk 14:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military cross decorations

Category:Military cross decorations - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Following on from discussions at WP:ODM, I nominate this category for deletion. This category is largely vestigial, from one of the many random schemes of categorisation which existed before the area of medals and decorations had a unified and consistent category structure. Back in January most of the irrelevant categorisations in this area were deleted. While that debate saw Category:Civilian cross decorations deleted, it seems that its military counterpart was overlooked. Xdamr^talk 14:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Doctors actors

Category:Doctors actors - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Cat. actors by series. Delete as precendt set for other cats that have contained actors by series. Lugnuts 14:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Football League players (current)

Merge into Category:The Football League players, current / former categories suffer from upkeep issues. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Czechoslovakian lugers

Rename to Category:Czechoslovak lugers, convention of Category:Czechoslovak sportspeople. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename this lug-related cat! Ahhh, wait it's looo-jurs and not lug-ers. Dang. Lugnuts 13:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:306ent albums

Propose renaming Category:306ent albums to Category:306 Entertainment albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The company name is 306 Entertainment. Would take this to speedy but I'm not convinced that the category shouldn't be deleted. Local company whose big artist is the owner's niece, whose own notability is somewhat questionable. Otto4711 01:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT directors

Category:LGBT directors - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This is not a category for people like John Waters who clearly makes LGBT-oriented films, but rather for any director who happens to be gay. I would recommend deleting this category and perhaps making a new one specifically targeted for people like John Waters...if needed. Bulldog123 00:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - the notion that LGBT directors should only be categorized as such if enough of their films are LGBT-oriented is arbitrary and untenable. Directors like James Whale, Dorothy Arzner and George Cukor had little or no opportunity to make explicitly LGBT-related films, but the notion that their sexuality had an impact on their films and their careers regardless is the topic of any number of independent reliable sources. The idea that directors should have to pass some sort of minimum queer content test before they can be included is unreasonable and insulting. The standard set forth at WP:OC#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference is that an encyclopedic lead article can be written on the topic and there is no question that a lead article on the topic of LGBT directors can be written.Otto4711 01:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, having looked more closely at the articles in the category, the names that I recognize off the top of my head would almost all pass the queer content test anyway, so deleting and rebuilding the category on that basis would be a complete waste of time and effort. Otto4711 01:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- No encyclopedic lead article can be written on directors who are just gay. On director's who's LGBTness affected their career...of course. But how do we know that is true for all these directors? We don't. Bulldog123 01:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with you, but since the vast majority of the directors in the category pass your queer content test it doesn't really matter. Otto4711 02:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Otto. If there is someone in particular who is in this category and you feel they should be removed, take it up on that article's talk page, but I see no reason to delete an otherwise utilitarian category. Film is a notable part of queer culture, and this categorization seems entirely valid. -Andrew c 03:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep One need only look at the Frameline Film festival (I believe over 150 films this year) to see that LGBT directors are part of the film industry and making an impact on the industry and culture. Benjiboi 06:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Otto's eloquent statement. DuncanHill 10:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV pushing illegitimate intersection. Wikipedia's left-liberal bias is painfully obvious and needs to be reversed. Haddiscoe 12:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]