Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 31

< July 30	August 1 >

July 31

Category:U.S. one-hit wonders

Category:U.S. one-hit wonders - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This category should be deleted per several previous discussions (including 2007 July 10). An existing article/list already covers the topic (One-hit wonders in the United States) and includes specific criteria for inclusion and references, both which cannot be included in categories but are necessary due to the vagueness of the term "one-hit wonder". --musicpvm 20:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hawkestone 17:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lists are better to provide contexts as to what is a hit such that someone only has one of them, and to show on which chart, when, etc., such "achievement" was met. Carlossuarez46 22:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Geniuses

Category:Geniuses - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This appears to be a faulty redirect. Currently the category is simply a redirect to Category:Giftedness, but the way it's set up it causes Geniuses to appear as a subcategory of Giftedness. However it shouldn't appear as a subcategory because it's looks like it's supposed to simply be a redirect and not an actual category that appears in any subcategory list. I think either the redirect needs to be somehow altered so that this doesn't appear as a subcategory under Giftedness or it needs to simply be deleted entirely. Dugwiki 19:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and block re-creation, this will be an obvious re-creation target. Carlossuarez46 19:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Æthelwold 22:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rare coins

Delete, the problem is that Rare is subjective. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak rename to Category:Collectible coins or (distant 2nd choice) Category:Famous coins along the lines of how we categorize individual notable animals under the "Famous animals" structure. Otto4711 16:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too subjective. This goes back to previous discussions on related categories. If renamed, Category:Coins no longer minted would be better, not subjective but probably too broad. Vegaswikian 18:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are plenty of much better coin categories. This just includes 3 US coins no rarer than hundreds of non-US coins. Johnbod 19:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & per Johnbod. Carlossuarez46 19:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. We should probably ask a numitologist if 'rare' is, in fact, a subjective term in the field. My guess would be that there is actually a standard for calling a coin 'rare'. I think that, in this case, 'famous' and 'collectible' are much more subjective. CaveatLector^Talk 22:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, numismatists have no agreed definition, and as generally used it covers thousands of coins. Two of these three are exceptionally valuable (millions of $), the third is not. No doubt there is a list of record coin prices somewhere, on which 2 will appear. Johnbod 22:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the current name is too subjective as are the proposed renamings above. --musicpvm 03:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective cat lacking clear inclusion criteria. Wryspy 04:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Musicians born in Ukraine

Delete, as non-defining. Category is for musicians who were born in Ukraine, but are not Ukrainian. Note that place of birth is rarely defining. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --musicpvm 20:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hawkestone 17:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philadelphia International performers

Category:Philadelphia International performers - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete similar to television personalities by station or network and actors by film studio, musicians can record for a number of different record labels over the course of a career. Some of these have been nominated and deleted previously but the approach has not been consistent. If kept, this should be renamed to Category:Philadelphia International Records artists to match the company's article Philadelphia International Records. Otto4711 16:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Philadelphia International Records artists per nom. Johnbod 22:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Law schools in the Chicago Metropolitan Area

Merge into Category:Law schools in Illinois, convention of Category:Law schools in the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Johnbod 22:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Law Schools in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area

Merge into Category:Law schools in Pennsylvania, convention of Category:Law schools in the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Johnbod 15:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Residents of Plymouth, Massachusetts

Rename to Category:People from Plymouth, Massachusetts, convention of Category:People by city in Massachusetts. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Æthelwold 22:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Sorry, I was the one who named it that, I didn't realize there was a standard in place. Rename it as soon as possible. Raime 18:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films about Prostitution

Category:Films about Prostitution - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - another "films about" category with nebulous inclusion requiring editors' POV to determine inclusion. How much of the film needs to be "about prostitution" to be included? Is Pretty Woman "about prostitution" because it has a prostitute as the lead character? If retained it needs to be renamed with a lower-case P per capitalization standards. Otto4711 14:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Films about prostituition, see also July 30th discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly creator's POV. Onnaghar(_T/^C) 18:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete suffers from the problems of most "films about" categories: how "about" the subject must the film be and what WP:RSes tell us that it's at least that much? POV & OR. Carlossuarez46 19:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete category without clear inclusion criteria. Exactly to what extent does a film have to include prostitute references to qualify? Wryspy 05:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People jailed under the Mann Act

Category:People jailed under the Mann Act - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - categorizing people on the basis of the specific statute under which they were jailed strikes me as overly specific overcategorization. Otto4711 14:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in the normal run of things that might be true, but the Mann Act was a historically important and controversial piece of legislation PatGallacher 14:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the list of people prosecuted under the Act in the Act's article not sufficient for this purpose? Otto4711 14:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - the list is enough (though surely not very complete?) Johnbod 15:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, on 2nd thoughts, as the person who created this category, the list is adequate. I wasn't aware it existed previously. PatGallacher 18:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - also a bad precedent to set, virtually any law is controversial: particularly to those accused under it. Carlossuarez46 19:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is historically important but I'd say this is exactly what overcategorization would consider better on a list. --Tellerman

Supermax prisoners

Rename both to Category:Prisoners at ADX Florence, to match ADX Florence. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:American prisoners and detainees - with certain rare exceptions (The Bastille, the Tower of London, maybe Alcatraz) the prison in which one is incarcerated is not a defining characteristic. Additionally, prisoners can be transferred to other prisons and so accumulate multiple prison categories, and can be released thus requiring unusually close maintenance. Otto4711 16:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (& merge) both per nom; I agree with Otto in principal, but the current inhabitants of the Supermax has probably given it a sufficient notoriety. Carlossuarez46 19:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both to Category:Prisoners at ADX Florence, to match ADX Florence. I agree with ProveIt. ADX is the only Federal Supermax so its a like The Bastille, the Tower of London, or Alcatraz. Its nickname is actually the The Alcatraz of the Rockies. So a Big Keep but, yes rename it. If someone makes a Cat for Supermax prisoners we should also sub cat it under that. Jmm6f488 15:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as jmm suggests. If they need maintenance, they can be maintained. But I think having once been in one is a defining characteristic and then the entries should be kept, as Otto suggests. . DGG (talk) 10:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Tudors

Category:The Tudors - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization for a TV show. Category not needed for the show article and subcats categorized elsewhere. Otto4711 12:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 19:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or at least rename to avoid potential confusion with Category:House of Tudor. Xtifr _tälk 19:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PlayMania

Category:PlayMania - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - minus the improperly categorized articles for hosts, the remaining material is interlinked and does not warrant a category. Otto4711 12:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former political parties in Mexico

Category:Former political parties in Mexico - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Defunct political parties in Mexico, in accordance with various other recent CfDs. Soman 11:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Bubwith

Category:People from Bubwith - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Pointless Category which will have very minimal content. Q ^{T C} 10:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is just as pointless as People from London. Which isn't very pointless. I can't see anything overly wrong with the category. Mattythewhite 10:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bubwith is a village with a population just over 1,000, not a "city or town" per the category name. Johnbod 12:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have added Category:People from the East Riding of Yorkshire to the only article here, no need to divide the riding cat that way. Carlossuarez46 19:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favour of the county category. Æthelwold 22:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by educational institution in Jersey

Suggest renaming Category:People by educational institution in Jersey to Category:People from Jersey by educational institution

Nominator's rationale: This would bring it into line with the other subcategories of Category:People from Jersey which has just undergone a substansial sub-categorisation RichardColgate 06:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oppose - : - convention is People by educational institution in Foo. Man vyi 07:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom. Onnaghar(_T/^C) 18:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: there is no broad convention for subcategories of "People from Foo"; if there appears to be one for Jersey, it is either because that category is still woefully underpopulated, or possibly because the persons who performed the recent "substansial sub-categorization" didn't understand or follow broader Wikipedia conventions. (I haven't investigated in detail, but I suspect the former after a quick glance, although Category:People from Jersey by parish may be mild overcategorization.) On the other hand, there is most definitely a convention for subcategories of Category:People by educational institution, and the current name matches that convention. Xtifr _tälk 19:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish folklore

Suggest merging Category:Jewish folklore to Category:Jewish mythology

Nominator's rationale: This categories seem to be indistinguishable. Category:Jewish folklore is newer. Also, if I understand correctly, mythology is, specifically, narrative folklore which is believed to be true. Soft redirect recommended to discourage re-creation. --Eliyak T·C 05:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These are both standard types of category. There is no apparent reason to treat these categories differently from the others. Postlebury 10:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Category:Jewish folklore was apparently created by a user who felt that "mythology" implies false belief. In fact, mythology is believed to be true, while this is not necessarily true for folklore. According to the mythology article, mythology has two characteristics: it is believed to be true, and carries elements of the supernatural. As far as I can tell, the articles in both categories belong in Category:Jewish mythology by this definition, whereas they are now split in an apparently arbitrary way. --Eliyak T·C 11:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Java7837 14:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that this is not a vote. If you do not give a rationale for your opinion, it is likely to be ignored by the closing admin. CaveatLector^Talk 21:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. --Eliyak T·C 14:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is a difference, as explained above, but I would have characterized it as "religious" versus "cultural". Carlossuarez46 19:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, there is a difference, but it is not seen in the current split, nor I think, in any of the articles. As far as I know, Judaism has little, if any, "folklore" that is not mythology. --Eliyak T·C 21:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Golem already in the category; and any of the number of foils for Jewish humor everying from yentas to chicken soup. Carlossuarez46 22:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm going to play Devil's advocate here and ask why exactly the Golem page falls under 'folklore' and not 'mythology'. CaveatLector^Talk 22:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as suggested. Although there is a subtle difference between Folklore and Mythology, the articles that populate Category:Jewish folklore are actually mythological in nature. In other words, in this case, the categories overlap. I do think that any result here should not prejudice a recreation of the folklore category if it can be populated with actual folklore items. CaveatLector^Talk 21:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep separate if there over 10 Jewish mythology articles by a count otherwise Merge it and call it "Jewish mythology and folklore" ... but Judaism is huge and there should be enough articles to fill each categegory if writers are doing their job. The difference as I see it is that mythology are only the sacred stories, while folklore is broader and can be raunchier and more anecdotal. Goldenrowley 22:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep separate there is a clear distinction, and there are many additional items to populate both. DGG (talk) 10:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: currently, Category:Mythology is a subcategory of Category:Mythography, which is a subcategory of Category:Folklore. This may be relevant to the debate. If folklore is the broader category (as our current categorization would suggest), then any mythology can be categorized as folklore until a more specific category is justified, but the reverse is not true. That assumes that the current category layout is justified, of course. Xtifr _tälk 12:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MTV people

Category:MTV VJs - Template:Lc1

Category:MTV India VJs - Template:Lc1

Category:MtvU VJs - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - per strong precedent against categorizing performers by the networks for which they perform, because people can appear on any number of networks in the course of a career. List of MTV VJs already exists. Otto4711 04:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Category:VJs, for people who are VJs, see also Category:DJs. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all per nom. Onnaghar(_T/^C) 18:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all per nom. Carlossuarez46 20:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with the idea that we shouldn't categorize People by television network. However, we do categorize by occupation, and it seems to me that VJ should qualify as an occupation. It just so happens that nearly all of them work for MTV or VH1, but that's just the way it happened. And if we don't create a category for them, how should we categorize people like Nina Blackwood, Alan Hunter and Martha Quinn? -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters who met untimely deaths

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

The result of the debate was Speedy close. (Already nominated.) Eliyak T·C 04:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters who met untimely deaths - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: "As per discussion at Category_talk:Fictional_characters_who_met_untimely_deaths, this category seems like a patently bad idea and "could include virtualy 25% of all fictional characters ever conceived". I agree. If all fictional characters who met untimely deaths were listed here, the category would have so many members as to be useless. Plus, who is the arbiter of what constitutes an untimely death? Some would say Darth Vader died an untimely death (brought up on the category's talk page). Others might argue his death was quite timely, just in time to save his son and his own soul, and to cap off an epic trilogy. Rangek 03:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't this already nominated? Or was that a list of the same topic? CaveatLector^Talk 03:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Burn with fire and salt the earth - we do not categorize fictional characters based on living or dead status and there is no possible objective definition of whether a fictional charcter's death is "untimely." Since this will undoubtedly be recreated again and again if not salted, SALT. Otto4711 04:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Allied occupation of Europe

Category:Allied occupation of Europe - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This category, along with its article Allied occupation of Europe, consists of original synthesis: an attempt to weave unconnected events into a single, original pattern in attempt to support a personal POV. Accordingly, the category, as well as its companion article, should be deleted according to Wikipedia policy of WP:NOR. Digwuren 01:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV title. The Allies did not occupy "Europe". Postlebury 10:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, renaming to restrict to after end of WWII Significant topic, on which I'm sure there are many more articles, although there is already an adequate number with the German sub-cat. Yes the main article is problematic, but that does not affect the utility of the category (the reverse if anything). I don't understand Postlebury's problem - virtually everywhere except Norway, Sweden, Yugoslavia(?) and Switzerland was occupied. Johnbod 11:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem: there was no orchestrated Allied Powers' campaign to occupy Europe. Merely because a few regions in Europe were occupied by a few distinct Powers is not sufficient basis to synthesise an "occupation of Europe" any more than it is to synthesise "Allied occupation of World" out of these same events. Digwuren 12:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have your own POV here frankly. Johnbod 12:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the WP:SYNTH and the allied occupation of europe sources. See some relation? Suva 13:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - POV heading. Rather empty category. And as said before, Allied forces didnt occupy Europe. Onnaghar(_T/^C) 18:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Æthelwold 22:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Synthesis of facts not supported by the sources. A case of WP:OR. Martintg 00:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would guess that probably this author is from the US, as am I. We do use the term the "occupation of Europe" for the time after WWII till a little after the Berlin airdrop. As I can see probably most Europeans don't use this term, because true we really didn't occupy Europe. It is really an old Cold War word. What do people from Europe call this time period or does it really not have a name considering this is really an US term for a US set of policies? Jmm6f488 15:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did not "occupy" Europe, you liberated it. The problem here is thet it is impossible to differentiate the "liberation" from the "occupation"; they are two faces of the same thing. Equally POV would be to say (as Digwuren is doing) that the Americans liberated and the Soviets occupied. -- Petri Krohn 03:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of Europeans only considered it an occupation of Germany until about 1955 or so. I guess many Americans think Germany = Europe. US troops did remain in Europe after 1955, but only as part of a NATO ~~backbone~~ commitment, to the relief and gratitude of Europe's NATO members scared witless at the thought of Soviet tanks rolling across the central European plains. However there is a political fringe that believes the presence of US troops anywhere is an "occupation". In Australia we call them the loony left. Martintg 18:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I mean through NATO. When I said occupy I didn't mean it in a negative way. That's just what people in the US call it. Most Americans, me included see it as a positive. so perhaps the category would be better named "NATO actions prior to 1956" or something along those lines. Jmm6f488 19:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your guess is wrong. The article's sole author, Petri Krohn, claims to be a Finn. Not that it matters much, of course. Digwuren 01:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This category had almost 100 articles before User:Digwuren started attacking it. Many of the articles are now moved to the subcategory Category:Allied occupation of Germany. Germany was however not the only country that was occupied. As User:Johnbod pointed out, virtually every country except Finland, Sweden, Yugoslavia(?) and Switzerland was occupied. The occupation of Berlin officially ended in 1991, and of Germany and Austria in 1954 and 1955. Digwuren himself claims that most of Eastern Europe was occupied until 1991. In fact, he has moved a large part of the articles originally in this category to Category:Soviet occupation. -- Petri Krohn 03:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Soviet Union, USA, France and Britain never jointly occupied Belgium, Netherlands, France, Britain, Spain and Portugal between 1945 and 1991. So to claim there was an allied occupation of Europe is nonsense. Martintg 05:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, to claim that every Ally had to be involved in each occupation for it to be an Allied occupation is nonsense! The Allies included Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and governments in exile from many other countries, who were never involved at the political level even in the occupation of Berlin or Germany. Johnbod 22:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A military alliance is a structure. An organisation; a bunch of personnel, equipment, and, of course, command lines. An alliance's defining factor is not its members, but its goals. And from these goals flow decisions.

When a battalion of soldiers has a goal to take control of a strategic point, even if this goal is achieved by a single squad, it would be considered this battalion's victory -- because that deed is within the scope of the whole military structure's goals. Not every squad needs to be represented by its members for that to happen.

But when that very same squad pillages a bar and drinks until morning, this would not generally be considered that battalion's doing. The soldiers might end up court martialed, and historians might write "soldiers belonging to that-and-that battalion engaged in pillaging", but that wouldn't make it "X battalion's pillage of world bars". Unless the battalion was inherently set up to pillage bars, of course.

When British forces took control of the Faroe Island, they did so within the framework of the Allied Powers' military strategy. It doesn't matter if, say, Canadian forces weren't actively participating. Thus, it is reasonable to consider this event an Allied Powers' action, executed by a particular -- in this case, British -- military unit.

When Soviet Union took control of half of Poland, it did not do this within this framework. Instead, it did that in an alliance with Nazi Germany, an Axis power. To consider this event an Allied Powers' military victory merely because Soviet Union proceeded to switch sides afterwards would be a distortion. As POVs go, this one is not even notable. Yet this distortion is the whole fundament of this category's premise. Digwuren 02:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Standard term for the post-WW2 administrations by Allied Control Commissions in Europe, especially Austria and Germany, and Japan. See eg a majority of the 196,000 Google hits for "Allied occupation". Or Britannica, with a section Austria - The Allied occupation. Jheald 14:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But how many google hits do you get for "Allied occupation of Europe"? Practically zero when you factor out hits on the Wikipedia article Allied occupation of EuropeThere is already a category Category:Allied occupation of Germany. What other countries did the Soviet Union and the Western powers jointly occupied in Europe? Martintg 05:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, a globe is a funny thing. Mine doesn't have an "Europe" that would substantially consist of Austria, Germany and Japan. In fact, somebody -- I guess he considers himself very clever -- has actually placed Japan on the very other side of the world from what is labelled "Europe".

Do you think the manufacturer will refund me for these defects if I show them your careful analysis? Digwuren 02:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Child molestation victims

Category:Child molestation victims - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This is like the recently deleted rape victims category. Its a WP:BLP nightmare and we do not need a list for where to find all the people who have been molested as children, SqueakBox 00:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment note that SqueakBox removes categories like this and the rape one, and uses the phrasing "remove trolling" in the edit summary. Even when there is a 3rd party reliable source to back up the claim. This nomination, and his comments on the rape category, seem to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Why is it a WP:BLP nightmare? If everything is verified, then there's no problem? Right? The correct answer is yes, BTW. Lugnuts 07:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstaining from voting, but adding Comment: I've seen the category removed from an article with the rationale "unsourced and not in text" in a case where a) the information was certainly in the text, and in the first part thereof; b) the information was clearly attributed to reliable print media sources (such as Rolling Stone) which were properly footnoted and had online links (ie, they could be instantly checked and verified by anyone wishing to do so) c) the subject in the article had voluntarily and actively come forward about his abuse, so he wasn't being "outed" or having his privacy invaded. The fact that none of these things were checked before the cat was removed leads me to believe that the claim that it's a "BLP nightmare" is largely unfounded. The sources are there and nobody's bothering to check them.

I'd also add that I think that this CfD should run its course BEFORE actions are made to depop the category. If there's an obvious BLP vio, that's one thing, and if consensus is reached to delete the cat, of course that should be honored. In the meantime, though, I don't think it should be removed from articles merely because editors don't like the category. DanielEng 11:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't need a category grouping celebrities who have sought kudos in our putrid contemporary media by telling stories (true or not) about their supposedly terrible childhoods. Postlebury 10:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a pretty terrible assumption. Most abuse survivors who come forward do so not for kudos, but for the purpose of helping other survivors and showing support and solidarity.DanielEng 11:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and they're not all "celebrities" as you put it either... Lugnuts 13:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - are celebrities the only child molestation victims? I think not. Onnaghar(_T/^C) 18:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete suffers from the same insurmountable verifiability, scope, and WP:BLP problems and lack of encyclopedic value that Category:Rape victims did; that cat was deleted at CFD earlier this month (it's still July here). Carlossuarez46 20:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-defining. Æthelwold 22:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "do no harm". VanTucky ^(talk) 23:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete besides the WP:BLP problems, what use could such a category possibly provide other than salacious tabloid style surfing? --Monotonehell 08:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis category is a horrible idea and really serves no purpose but for gossip hounds. Jmm6f488 14:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This category is a perfectly acceptable addition to the as long as it is backed up by verifiable sources (I agree that tabloids don't cut it). I've yet to see a reason for deletion on here that doesn't reveal more about the wikipedian's own personal prejudices than objective criteria. There is certainly nothing trivial or salacious about it, and the assumption that such claims are made for attention is frankly disgusting.

Treybien 20:34 1 August 2007 (UTC)

- A list would allow inclusion of citations for verifiability. Vegaswikian 05:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep and have some standards for what gets included, such as the ones listed above by DanielEng. A reasonable and useful and practical way of grouping articles. DGG (talk) 10:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How would citations be attached to an included category template? A list would work better for verifiability. But I'm still unconvinced at its usefulness. --Monotonehell 11:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: while I strongly disagree with nom's BLP concerns, I think my objections to the rape victims category also apply here: molestation is far from unusual, and this is, for most people who could fit in this category, not a defining characteristic. As I said at that debate (quoted by the closer): "I think we may end up with a semi-random collection of people with little or nothing in common except one minor (from a historical perspective if not a personal one) incident in their lives." In addition, this has a problem that the boundaries between molestation and statutory rape are not always clear. Although I have never engaged in non-consensual sex in my life, I grew up in the seventies, and it's possible that were my life fully and reliably documented, I could end up in this or the previously deleted category, which I would find preposterous. I also have strong reservations about how reliably this can be documented. Is a psychiatrist's opinion enough, and if not, why not? What if two different psychiatrists disagree on the truth of such claims by an alleged victim? Frankly, I think this is a POV minefield as well as usually non-defining. On the other hand, if this comes down to the issue of BPL, then count me as a vote to keep, as I thoroughly disagree with that line of reasoning—so much that I'd rather have this category kept despite its many problems than have it deleted on such an inappropriate basis. Xtifr _tälk 21:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete excessively broad category that unfortunately includes too large a portion of the whole human race. Wryspy 05:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]