The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Rename, The category is specific to ancient Greece, and the name should be of the form "Foo in country" (or in this case, cultural region). --Akhilleus (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. the wub"?!"17:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply] Category:Censorship advocates(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
As much as I'd like to tar and feather every one of these bastards (check out how many books Anthony Comstock was responsible for destroying), I think the category is too vague to be meaningful because censorship is regrettably too pervasive. It's a very slim minority of the politicians presently in office in the United States that don't support some form of government-enforced censorship, whether it's of depictions of sexuality on the internet, violence in video games, or profanity on broadcast media. And that's in an ostensibly free country...this would additionally become a dumping ground for every leader from a nation that suppresses political speech. Postdlf22:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I started the category. Tarring & feathering aside, I think it's important to be able to understand the work of those involved on all sides of the free expression / censorship continuum. Your point that it is too vague is well-taken. I'm not sure I agree -- possibly, it could be defined well enough to be meaningful. The point about the dumping ground is a little different. Yes, almost everyone agrees on "censorship" in some instances and "free expression" in other instances, but that's a problem with any short description of a political or activist perspective.... However, maybe there's a better way to slice this. The category/ies that I think would be helpful to support the work in First Amendment, censorship, First Amendment caselaw, and other articles, would be categories that gather individuals who have played a role in developing the free expression/censorship debates, dialogs, disputes. I set up Category:Free speech activists as part of that larger project. Thoughts? --LQ23:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, those articles need a lot of work. But look at Free speech in the United States which has see refs to Floyd Abrams; or the see also free speech advocates on Censorship in the United States. Both of these are completely inadequate--why just Floyd Abrams, for instance? Categories to pull together organizations and individuals who work in this area -- on whatever side -- would, IMO, be useful and would support these pages. --LQ23:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Floyd Abrams is mentioned because a certain Wikipedian happens to be a really big fan. And because there really aren't that many notable attorneys whose careers were so significantly defined by their First Amendment work. But regarding this category, I just don't think it makes sense to lump "censorship advocates" together without regard to what they want to censor, or how they sought to do it. Without that context, it just expands to "People who support governmental regulation of the content of at least some speech." Which is unfortunately most people at all times in history at all places. The consequence of this can be seen already in this category, in the equivocation of Wertham with Comstock. I'd be happy to work with you elsewhere to expand Wikipedia's objective coverage of these issues and this history, but this category is not the way to do it. Postdlf00:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for muddled thinking. Anyone who thinks that practical demonstrations of methods of child abuse shouldn't be broadcast on primetime television advocates censorship. In the Western world "Censorship" is mainly a term of abuse used by people who advocate laxer controls to intimidate anyone who disagrees with them, and there is also the irony that the liberals who denounce censorship take a hard line against the expression of conservative opinions they disagree with, to the point for example of hounding the President of Harvard into resigning for making a moderate comment as part of a serious debate. This acts to censor anyone else who might dare to utter an unfashionable opinion. If that isn't censorship, there is no censorship in the Western world. The term has been debased to the point where it is inadvisable to use it in the context of Western culture or society. Merchbow14:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The word "censorship" could easily be liberally interpreted here, thus creating a POV problem. I can simply imagine that publishers that do not want to fund all submitted publication, news sources that do not want to include graphic or inflammatory journal, or academic journals that do not want to accept all submitted articles could easily be labeled as committing "censorship" by some angry Wikipedians. It would be better to delete this category. George J. Bendo18:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Rename, This category appears to cover both cities and towns so the name should reflect that, in line with various of its siblings, unless anyone is aware of an official distiction between cities and towns in Mongolia. Hawkestone22:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete [all]There are thousands of female politicians in the world and the number is increasing rapidly so there is no reason to have these gender categories.The name[s are] malformed in any case.Hawkestone22:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all and Comment. The "policy" against gender categorization is a guideline, not a policy. The guideline specifically notes that categorizing politicians by sex is legitimate. Otto471123:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all (and even if they were kept this is clearly intended as a "by country" categorisation, not a "by nationality" one). --Mais oui!10:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info From the guidelines: For example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed, but a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest. That category, however, does not need to be balanced directly against a "Male heads of government" category, as historically the vast majority of political leaders have been male by default. Bissinger23:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Women members of the United States House of Representatives[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
DeleteThere are thousands of female politicians in the world and the number is increasing rapidly so there is no reason to have these gender categories.The name is malformed in any case.Hawkestone22:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Hawkestone. Listifying would additionally be appropriate, so that the female members of Congress can be documented in order of their election. Postdlf01:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Women members of HoR to Female members of HoR just for consistency with the Senate cat, Keep Female US senators, Delete Women in Congress as redundant. Again, the gender guideline specifically states that categorizing politicians by sex is acceptable and reasonable. I am at a loss to understand why, when there's already been concensus reached on that particular point, people continue to try to backdoor past it on rename nominations to delete the cats. It's extremely tiresome. Otto471105:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per the guidelines: For example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed, but a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest. That category, however, does not need to be balanced directly against a "Male heads of government" category, as historically the vast majority of political leaders have been male by default. Bissinger23:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/upmerge The time for making a point about politicians's gender has passed. The U.S. Secretary of State and the House Speaker are both women, but they should be judged as politicians, not as women. Nonomy23:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete - This is mildly interesting, but the list already exists elsewhere, and categorizing articles based on this criteria is inappropriate. George J. Bendo18:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
This category neither gives a usefull navigational aid nor does it help in systematically categorizing article space. At the very least, it should be restricted to those persons, notable for their conversion. Trivia like Von Neumann agreed to convert to Catholicism to placate her family. (from John von Neumann) earn hardly a place in the article, let alone should be used for categorization. --Pjacobi11:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Misuse is possible in any category and isn't a reason to delete. Names that don't fit should be removed and I'm willing to do so to some extent. Other than that this is no different than Category:Converts to Shi'a IslamorCategory:Converts to Orthodox Judaism. (As in conversion to a specific stream or denomination of a religion) In addition to that being a convert to a religion can be as, or often more, significant than being born into it.--T. Anthony13:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. We've met at more than one religious category cfd. It seems that the religion-fixation of en.wikipedia is un-curable, but you are a nice one. We can try together to sift the entries after this cfd fails, but I'm fairly certain, that the von Neumann stlye entries will pop up again over time. --Pjacobi15:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your position, but I think the religious history of a person is often a useful and relevant part of their notability. In this case there's historical interest due to the converts from the Oxford Movement, which I did a presentation on in graduate school, and a few other movements. Still I guess I could tolerate it being deleted as long as every subcategory in Category:Converts is deleted and the conversion lists survive. (I do concede the List of Catholic converts, List of converts to Judaism, etc might be a better/more informative way to deal with this.)--T. Anthony07:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Horsemen of Apocalypse(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Delete trivial comic book supervillain group category. The parent article, Horsemen of Apocalypse, already lists everyone ever considered a member of this. The main problem with this category is that many characters became "members" simply by being brainwashed by Apocalypse, so by virtue of a one- or two- issue plot twist, this becomes additional meaningless clutter on the articles of some major characters, like the Hulk and Wolverine. Plus there's our prior CFD precedents against categorizing the affiliations of comic book characters...but this one fails regardless. Postdlf05:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In some sense these are not even these characters, as some are from the world of Apocalypse, where things went differently than in standard continuity.--Mike Selinker15:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
My feeling was that if we were planning to divide them by time, now might be a good time to start. I think going by decade rather than year is a good idea, since there are fewer tv movies, or at least feweer ones that get articles. -- ProveIt(talk)01:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete subjective category that expresses POV regarding characters' status as pastiches. Category leaves too much room for POV, OR, and an endless, arguable list of entries. Doczilla04:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listify? and delete... This category is pretty iffy... for instance, Steel isn't a Superman pastiche, he's a character who pays homage to Superman by wearing his symbol. On the other hand, Hyperion and Sentry are... and that's a rather important trait for them. So, consider if a list is viable, but delete the category. --HKMarks(T/C) 04:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I know I'm going against the mob here, but as Superman was the first superhero, this topic is actually notable. - jc3712:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one is disputing that the topic of Superman pastiches is encyclopedic, which is why it's covered in its own section in Superman in popular culture. What is being disputed is that it makes for a good and useful category, which you haven't addressed. Postdlf17:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree that it's "encylopedic", and notable, then the only question is whether it's disputable. Reading above, it sounds like this is merely a category in need of some cleanup. - jc3701:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the comments above establish that cleanup is insufficient. You still haven't explained why a category is appropriate, in lieu of or in addition to the list that already exists. Postdlf19:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I meant "mob" differently than you took it, I merely was euphemistically meaning "grouping of people" (the pack, the hordes, etc), in other words, the majority who voted delete above. However, I also realise that the word can have negative connotations, my apologies for the confusion. - jc3701:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...because? And please address specifically why it's useful as a category, instead of being kept only as an annotated, sourced list. Postdlf19:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There already is a list at Superman in popular culture, as I mentioned above. Yes, sometimes lists, categories, and navboxes are all appropriate to maintain for the same subject, but only when there's a form-specific benefit to doing so that outweighs any drawbacks. Postdlf15:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Listify I created this cat a while back to include together characters who are obvious and intentional pastiches of Supes outside the DCU: Apollo, Mr Majestic, etc but it's been filled with junk ever since (team Superman members, anything with Super in the name). Make it a list to save the relevant info. Perhaps a better name/description would fix the problem? Palendrom22:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
