Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 18

< November 17	November 19 >

November 18[edit]

Category:Reunited musical groups[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: DELETE. Postdlf (talk) 04:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - seems a bit ambiguous to serve as the basis for categorization. Does the entire original lineup have to reunite? A certain percentage of the originals? If they reunite for a specific event and then go back on their separate ways does that count? And is this a defining characteristic of the bands in the first place? Perhaps better served by a list so details can be included. Otto4711 (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (listify if wanted). The points Otto raises are all legitimate. Making a list alone could get quite complicated with explanations of the different permutations and combinations that have occurred in the past. Let's not even start talking about Menudo. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a defining characteristic, hard to define. For instance, you have cases like McBride & the Ride, where everyone but the lead singer left, then they broke up, then the original lineup came back for one album and disbanded again. Too confusing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Bohemian F.C. international footballers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: delete as overcategorization (merge done just to be sure). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Merge with Category:Bohemian F.C. players. no precedent for this, categorising by club for having played for a national team Mayumashu (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. And restore the Rovers one as well. Very useful information and frequently requested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.198.140.206 (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting note. If this information is truly "useful and frequently requested", a list in the image of this one may be the way to go, rather than a category. I'm not saying I personally am in favour of a list and opposing the category—I'm just throwing it out there for consideration as I relist the discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Occuli (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since the more notable Shamrock Rovers one was deleted this should be too. Personally I'd have kept both but since the Rovers one is gone this must go too. I suggest a delete rather than merge as from a quick random sample the players are already all listed in the Bohemian F.C. players category --Albert.white (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, then delete. Don't see the need for this - seems like overcategorisation to me. A list, as suggested by Good Olfactory above, would be more appropriate. Terraxos (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Vocal quartets[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: Withdrawn now that criteria are established. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Was created as a result of a CfD related to Category:Quartets and its subcats. However, this has no clear criteria for inclusion, and may be subject to OR. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Vocal quartet seems clear enough. (The related cfd was on 2008 October 31 and resulted in a rename.) Occuli (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the contents demonstrate, there are unquestionably groups that deserve to be categorized as Vocal quartets. However, the (implicit) request for inclusion criteria is reasonable, so I am working on that with another editor. Cgingold (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm happy to work on explicit criteria if they are really needed.LeadSongDog (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Populated and provided initial criteria. Please comment.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly defined, useful -MrFizyx (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Serial killers before 1900[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Serial killers before 1900 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I do not see the significance of this year as a singular cut-off point. How were serial killers before 1900 any different than serial killers 1901–present? Sure they probably watched less TV (absorbed less mass media in general) and were less likely to consciously or sub-consciously be copy-cats of one another, but still… — CharlotteWebb 18:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Already contained in this list, which in itself has issues! Lugnuts (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, arbitrary cut-off. Postdlf (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:British people of Indo-Guyanese descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was:

Relisted at 2008 NOV 27. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Seems to be an example of overcategorisation, based on an intersection of ethnicities already covered by existing categories such as Category:British people of Indian descent and Category:British people of Guyanese descent. Furthermore, the people included in the category arguably shouldn't be given the advice that "people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career". Cordless Larry (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:British people of Indian descent and Category:British people of Guyanese descent. It is indeed a fine example of WP:OCAT. Occuli (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I am far from sure that this is an unsatsifacotry triple intersection. A large number of Indian labourers were brought to British Guiana (as it then was) to work in sugar plantations in the 19th century. I think they remians a signifciant ehtinic group within the country. Accordingly, those of them whom emigrate to Britain may be regarded as a disticnt group. This should not be dismissed out of hand, but I would like to see more views. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I m with Peterkingiron. I think it should ideally be a subcat of the two, but I won t stand in the way of the nomination Mayumashu (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Former conservatives[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per precedent for functionally identical category, Category:Former liberals. The consensus for deletion of the "former liberals" category, as I understand it, rested on the inherent ambiguity and variability of the label "liberal" when divorced from context, made worse by the problems inherent in categorizing people by former adherence to something. Though there are other members of Category:People by former political orientation, I can't say that those labels are necessarily as problematic as this one, so I'll leave those to future nominations. Postdlf (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Per WP:CAT (and Otto), three questions that are useful in determining the utility of a category are: 1) Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the topic of the category? YES - Numerous magazine and newspaper articles have been written on the subject. 2) Is it obvious why any given article would be in the category? YES These are people who had been identifiably conservative and have later been identifiably liberal. These individuals often talk about their conversion, and the reliable and verifiable sources talk about the philosophical change. 3) Does the category fit into the overall categorization system? YES - Given the broad structure of Category:People by former political orientation, it is clear that we have no difficulty identifying political philosophy. And the first guideline for category usage is that the category groups similar articles together. That is certainly happening here. Alansohn (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not sure why my name is being invoked here, but the category should be deleted per consistency with the "former liberals" CFD. All of the same arguments for deletion there apply here. Political identity, especially such broad identities as "liberal" and "conservative" are simply too flexible to serve as appropriate bases for categorization. This is especially true in American politics, where the same person may hold political beliefs simultaneously that may be considered "liberal" and "conservative". People often describe themselves or are described by others as being conservative on economic issues and liberal on social issues, and vice versa. A classic example is Barry Goldwater, an arch-conservative who believed in the generally-liberal-identified repeal of Don't ask, don't tell and other LGBT-positive positions. Would anyone suggest classifying Goldwater as a "former conservative" because he adopted this "liberal" position in one sphere? Otto4711 (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you scroll down to the discussion of Category:LGBT-related television episodes, you have set a standard that is met by that category that is more than met by this one. Bizarrely, you come to rather different conclusions. Instead of concocting manufactured hypothetical cases that aren't in the category as an excuse to delete an entire category, maybe the standard should be the ones you've used on this same page, just a few lines down. Besides, in this case, ample reliable sources are also available. Alansohn (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My example is far from hypothetical. I don't know if you're in the United States, but if so, you are probably completely familiar with the phenomenon I'm discussing of people holding within their own political views opinions that span the spectrum of what is deemed "liberal" and "conservative" thought. Otto4711 (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Conservative is a term which has differnet meanings in different counties. In UK, it would refer to people who had left the Conservative Party (e.g. Shaun Woodward). In USA (though I do not live there and thus do not know for certain), it would refer to those who have abandoned a conservative political (or religious) stance. Identifying people may involve POV issues and even be an attack category. If the category were to be be kept, it would need to be split according to the different uses of the term. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that we have Category:Conservatives, which is a structure with several hundred entries? How is it that we are able to identify conservatives, but not former conservatives? CfD is great for a lot of things, but consistency sure isn't one of them. Alansohn (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd respond to your pointing to one category to justify another but I have to clean the wax off my monitor first. Otto4711 (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could address the issue. The argument that's being presented here is that we are unable to identify people as conservative, but we have a strong precedent for doing so. How is it that we manage to determine who belongs in Category:Conservatives? IHATEIT strikes again! Alansohn (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of you are helping. I think we need a ban on the snarky, off-point use of acronyms as a substitute for dialogue. Alansohn raises a valid point by asking how we can distinguish this from the underlying category, so WAX is really not a productive retort, and Otto4711 has not made any comment as to his personal feelings about the subject matter of the category, so IHATEIT is an inapplicable and dismissive mischaracterization. Postdlf (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What distinguishes this from Category:Conservatives? That's easy; nothing. Nothing distinguishes them, because all of the same arguments against the nominated category apply to it as well, at least in US politics. I point once more to Barry Goldwater, who endorsed a Democrat in a congressional race, supported allowing gays to serve openly in the military and supported a medical marijuana initiative. Without the name "Barry Goldwater" attached, does a person holding those views sound like a "conservative" or a "liberal"? Again, political beliefs are too fluid and political viewholders too complicated as in their views to fall under simplistic and non-neutral labels like "liberal" and "conservative." Otto4711 (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A breath of consistency, but I think that we are capable as editors of determining whether a particular politician is a conservative, liberal, communist or anarchist. Not only that, but we have reliable and verifiable sources that label these politicians as such, which if I understand Wikipedia correctly is what we're supposed to base these decisions on. How is it that far more-reliably sourced and defining characterizations of political stripes are impossible to assess even with sources, while we have no trouble leaving the labeling of television programs to editors, without a single source? Why is it that certain categories require hard and fast definitions with universal acceptance while others appear to operate with consensus on the same page (scroll down) with inclusion criteria that are based on I know it when I see it? I'm still learning the rules of the CfD game, but I'm becoming more and more convinced that there are none. Alansohn (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent established by the CFD of Category:Former liberals. In hindsight, I'm not entirely sure the right decision was reached there, but if we deleted that category we shouldn't keep this one. Terraxos (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. liberal and conservative (lower case) are not parties or organizations. They don't really have an official membership. A person may declare themselves one or the other, or be thought of by others as one of the two, but it's a subjective matter. So there's no reliable guide to who has switched from one category to the other.Bjones (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Corinne Bailey Rae[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was:

Relisted at 2008 NOV 27. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete There is no reason for this umbrella category - artist has not released enough material to warrant it and she already has the basic album/songs categories, which is more than enough. eo (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Overcategorization. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – 3 substantial subcats (+ 1 dodgy one) is sufficient justification. Occuli (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Occuli - even if the "dodgy one" goes, there's still enough to warrant a category. Cgingold (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per extensive precedent and WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. Everything is appropriately linked through text and template. Otto4711 (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Corinne Bailey Rae concert tours[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: delete (empty). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete There is no reason for this - only one article in the category which is proposed for deletion. eo (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - unnecessary nom. The cat stays if the article stays and goes (as an empty cat) if it goes. Occuli (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as empty. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:LGBT-related television episodes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: KEEP. Postdlf (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete it is a broad, loosely-defined category that is based entirely on a single theme. Why not also have "Politics-related television episodes" or "Zoo-themed television episodes"? It is also worth noting that a similar category, Category:LGBT television episodes, was deleted just under two years ago. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 01:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The person proposing this deletion uses a flawed rationale. While there are literally billions of politically themed TV show episodes and zoo related TV show episodes, there are not many TV show episodes featuring themes relevant to a gay audience; while many feature gay characters, the themes of the show remain predominantly unrelated to GLBT concerns, and as such those that do exist are of interest. Further, while many on the political right would very much enjoy seeing all discussion of GLBT life eliminated, even discussion of TV show episodes themed on issues relevant to GLBT life, Wkipedia maintains a strict NPOV stance, and does not cater to the political or religious right wing or left wing. This NPOV stance allows Wikipedia to feature articles on aspects of life that would not appear in traditional encyclopedias, and to aggregate these articles into categories which would allow those with an interest in said articles to explore trends which would otherwise be invisible. Thus, I vote to keep this category, to facilitate the exploration and understanding of a social aspect from an NPOV stance. Rain City Blues (talk) 04:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the definition of the category is not loose at all. Category is extremely useful for grouping episodes of TV series that don't normally deal with this topic. The critical attention paid to and public controversy that resulted from these episodes demonstrates that LGBT-related television episodes is a topic of strong encyclopedic interest. Otto4711 (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - You didn't seriously refer to a CfD that is two years old, did you? WP:CCC :)

Furthermore, there are striking differences between a general topic like "politics" and this specific "LGBT-related". These include: a) minority groups have historically been ignored and/or written out of a culture, b) LGBT recognition in TV episodes has been documented and has articles (see Media portrayal of lesbianism and Media portrayal of bisexuality), and c) the criteria for the cat are pretty clear, though of course there will be some questionable entries. Keep and flesh out rather than delete. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've seen that many people here at cfd often cite two or sometimes three year old results. As well, there is already a list for these pages, so why is a category really necessary? And I'm curious, would you endorse a "Muslim-related television episodes" category because that is another group that has historically been ignored in American culture. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 03:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) In general it's very useful to link earlier CFDs -- not so the previous outcomes will determine the result of the new CFD, but rather because it can be helpful to see what sorts of issues were raised that might otherwise be overlooked. 2) The issue of how minority groups are portrayed in popular culture is hugely important -- so a similar category for Muslim-related television episodes would be an excellent addition. Cgingold (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to, nor do I find anything wrong with, pointing out previous CfD's. What I was pointing out is that the wording used implied "We just did this", even though it was two years ago. Furthermore, I was pointing out that consensus can change. And yes, I would welcome a Category:Islam-related television episodes, assuming there was something encyclopedic about the category (which I believe there is), and/or assuming a reader might want to peruse Category:Television episodes through a category tree structure.

Having said all that, the "Television episodes" category tree is pretty sparse, theme-wise. We have Category:Christmas television episodes, Category:Steampunk television episodes, and Category:Cyberpunk television episodes. I still believe the cat should be kept, but I guess we don't have the tree that I expected - Category:Television episodes by theme. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We put in inclusion criteria on the template page. Categories are for keeping together related items, such as LGBT episodes. CTJF83Talk 02:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's another thing, this category seems to not have much of a criteria for inclusion, it just describes itself as "LGBT-themed", so wouldn't every episode of Will & Grace or Ellen automatically fall in it? For specific episode examples, would an episode of The Simpsons like Simpson and Delilah not warrant inclusion because it contains a kiss between Homer and Karl and thus is "LGBT-related", while Trapped in the Closet from South Park includes a lot of double entendres that might also make it "LGBT-related", or the most recent episode of The Simpsons, Homer and Lisa Exchange Cross Words which contains several scenes in a gay bar and thus would count as "LGBT-related". -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - We can always expand and specify the criteria. Poor criteria for inclusion, isn't a reason to CfD. That can be fixed easily! CTJF83Talk 03:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, I could probably find several examples of fiction-related categories that have been deleted for just that reason. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 03:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The category specifically excludes episodes from series that are LGBT-related in general, so Will and Grace and Ellen episodes would not be included here. Otto4711 (talk) 10:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Both for Ctjf83 and Otto (and anyone else who wants to dive in): We put in inclusion criteria on the template page. Categories are for keeping together related items So any category that has inclusion criteria should be retained? This is another never-fail argument that I will file away for future use. I will agree here with Otto that if there is a separate Category:LGBT-related television programs that episodes from those programs should not be included here. The question is still how do we determine if an episode "substantially cover such issues"? Alansohn (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As I said above, the issue of how minority groups are portrayed in popular culture is extremely important, and is therefore sufficiently noteworthy to warrant categories. Looking at the contents of this category, it is clearly functioning properly and serving the intended purpose, not just gathering a lot of chaff, so I don't see any reason to delete it on those grounds. Cgingold (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can anyone explain exactly how "substantially cover such issues" is determined? As noted above, the most recently aired episode of The Simpsons, Homer and Lisa Exchange Cross Words includes scenes where Homer breaks up a gay couple. Is this episode LGBT-related? Is the cutoff based on percentage? Is it sources describing the episode as LGBT? Of all minority groups, why shouldn't there be corresponding categories for Category:African American-related television episodes (that would exclude The Jeffersons, but include the All in the Family episode "Sammy's Visit" where Archie meets -- and is kissed by -- Sammy Davis Jr.) or Category:Jewish-related television episodes (which would include Family Guy episode When You Wish Upon a Weinstein and come to think of it, the Sammy Davis, Jr. episode on All in the Family)? Why shouldn't there be Category:Mormon-related television episodes or Category:Korean-related television episodes? I'd like to hear clearer explanations for why this category is justified under WP:CAT. Alansohn (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the dreaded "reverse wax" argument! Why indeed if the material exists shouldn't there be categories for other minority-related television episodes?
Per WP:CAT, three questions that are useful in determining the utility of a category are: 1) is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the topic of the category? Given that numerous books have been written on the subject, I'd say yes. 2) is it obvious why any given article would be in the category? Based on the articles in the category, yes. 3) does the category fit into the overall categorization system? Given other categories that have been linked here, I'd say yes again. And the first guideline for category usage is that the category groups similar articles together. That is certainly happening here. Otto4711 (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with your is it obvious why any given article would be in the category? Based on the articles in the category, yes. Do I understand this correctly that this means that the definition can be entirely subjective to the point where the only way that you can discern which categories belong here is based on looking at the articles included, not at the definition? I am having trouble understanding the "substantially cover such issues" clause. Does the episode of The Simpsons, Homer and Lisa Exchange Cross Words, which includes scenes where Homer breaks up a gay couple and makes multiple references throughout the episode to LGBT-related themes, belong in this category? Is it based on percentage? Sources? Coverage in books or college courses? What belongs here and what doesn't? Alansohn (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, that is the hard part, Alansohn. I don't know if that should be included or not. There was only a scene in the gay bar, and Julio and Grady (the gay characters for those who didn't see it) were only shown briefly, unlike in Three Gays of the Condo. So I would lean to not include it, but that is the difficult part, episodes like this. CTJF83Talk 19:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So how can anyone decide if an episode is in or out? (pun was mostly unintentional, but I'll go with it). Do you feel that the "substantially cover such issues" is adequate here and as a precedent for future CfD discussions. Is there consensus that this should be the case? Alansohn (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe we can work out more specific criteria on here? CTJF83Talk 05:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per Otto (although 'delete per Alansohn' is tempting, having even greater rarity value in cfds). Occuli (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (My comment from when this was deleted two years ago) - There is already List of television episodes with LGBT themes which handles this subject better than any category could. Just because something can become a category does not mean that it would be better suited as a category. This is one of those cases. The list can be linked to any appropriate article if and when the article discusses LGBT episodes, or in a "See also" section." --☑ SamuelWantman 10:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The category can be linked as easily as the list can be, so that's no argument in favor of deletion. No one appears to be suggesting that the category is superior to the list, rather, per WP:CLN they complement each other. There are several hundred episodes on that list, most of which would not be notable enough for individual articles. Why should someone interested in this topic have to scan through hundreds of entries in search of bluelinks? Otto4711 (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linking manually or via categorization isn't the argument for deletion, but makes the point that information is not lost if the category is deleted. My point in all of this is that sometimes lists and categories can compliment each other, but sometimes one is flawed (usually the category), so we should resort to the other. In this case, I find that defining episodes this way is questionable. It requires questionable judgment about whether or not an article is notable because of being "LGBT-related". Many of our guidelines are written to discourage the use of categories to tag articles for non-notable attributes. Being "LGBT-related" is very notable for All in the family episodes, but probably not for Will & Grace episodes. Even some fairly well known episodes in this category, like The Outing do not mention the way in which the episode is significant for being "LGBT-related" other than the obvious fact that there is an LGBT plotline. We routinely delete categories that intersect religion, ethnicity and sexuality with profession unless something significant to make the connection. As time goes on, just being "LGBT-related" may or may not be significant. For this reason, I think it is defective as a category and much better suited for remaining as a list. Even the list would benefit from some scholarship that chronologically follows the ways LGBT people have been represented in television, rather than listing every possible episode. I guess what I am looking for is more scholarship on all fronts. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 00:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deficiency of a particular article is not an excuse for deleting the category. A quick Google books search demonstrates that The Outing and its included coinage "not that there's anything wrong with that" have garnered a tremendous amount of critical attention and the phrase has entered the popular lexicon. There may indeed be material to support articles on the AITF episodes (I ran across one in particular that contrasts "Cousin Liz" with an episode of Designing Women aired some 20 years later that looks fascinating) and if so I strongly encourage that such an article be written (and may write it myself). Since from the start the category was designed to exclude episodes from series which routinely deal with LGBT issues these concerns about W&G episodes being included are unfounded. I agree that a chronological or at least a sortable list of LGBT-related episodes would be great and possibly even a featured list candidate if properly done. That doesn't make the category "defective" any more than a chronological list of Academy Award winners makes the various Oscar categories defective. The significant connection between these articles is that they are episodes of mainstream television series that are dealing with a subject that for the first 30-some years of the medium was forcibly ignored and which still is often ignored and the category assists those interested in researching how that medium and society have dealt with that subject in the context of series that don't usually deal with it. Otto4711 (talk) 05:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is very clear to me what an Academy Award winning film is, and what a non-winning film is. But deciding (nowadays) that a TV episode is LGBT-related is very problematic. The current definition is fairly vague, and without constant vigilance would end up with anything that had a vaguely "gay" character. Would you think it appropriate to have a similar category for Feminist related shows?, Italian American related?, African-American related? Catholic related? poor people related? The problem is that none of these categories would have a clear way to determine if articles belong or don't belong without explanation. I am not denying that there is an important subject here. You don't need to convince me of that. I am saying, that as it is now defined, it is a bad category. The only way I could conceive of this possible working as a category is if it was limited to articles that have a section that discusses the relevance and context of the LGBT related content of the show with citations. If that were the case, the category would be a useful way to find such discussions. Thas type of categorization -- categorizing the actual significant content of articles -- might be a big improvement on what we do now. Our guidelines say that categorization should be uncontroversial. I take that to mean not that the subject matter is uncontroversial, but rather that the decision on what belongs in a category should be somewhat obvious. The distinction between what belongs and what does not belong should have a sharp well-defined boundary. For this category, I don't know what the boundary is. Is it that the entire show dealt with LGBT issues? Is it that there was a gay character? Is it that one line was "Oh that is so gay!"? There is a broad range of gray. Even among the shades of gray it is not clear. In 1970 an episode having a 10 second appearance of a gay character was significant. Today a similar appearance rarely is. Would both be included in the category? How can you define it to make membership clear and uncontroversial? In other words, can you come up with a definition for "substantially" from the category description? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support this category, not just because I think it fulfills all relevant Wikipedia policies, but because it sets a rather clear precedent for inclusion of unrelated entries in a single category. While Otto has been able to compare and contrast one episode to another, there is absolutely nothing connecting the entries in this category to each other, nor need there be. What connects them is that they are television episodes that are LGBT-related. These are appropriate for categorization if though the there is no objective definition of what LGBT means, nor is there (or can there be) a definition of what "substantially cover such issues" means. This is a valid category because of the common connection, and the fact that the definition is entirely subjective is not relevant. I would like to see a clearer definition, but that's no reason to delete the category. Alansohn (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we are capable as editors of determining whether a particular TV episode covers an LGBT issue in significant fashion, and I think that the LGBT contingent is very good about policing categories. This same scheme has worked uncontroversially for Category:LGBT-related films for four years and we seem not to have issues with what to include or not include there. Perhaps that category description (modified for the episodes category) would quell your concerns? This category should only contain television episodes that deal with or feature important lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender characters or issues and may have same-sex romance or relationships as an important plot device, and is restricted to episodes from series that do not routinely address such issues. Otto4711 (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the "I know it when I see it" standard you propose is great not just for determining if a television episode is "LGBT-related" (and not just obscenity), but what really makes me happy is that it opens a barn door that we desperately need to have opened to end the IHATEIT tendencies so many have. There is no objective standard needed to satisfy a category, nor are any sources needed, here or for any other category based on this precedent, which should end most of our CfD nonsense. The argument that this category sat here ignored for four years gives it no carte blanche to avoid the issues that have been raised, nor would you tolerate that explanation in any other case. With your new, improved definition, how do we define "important", either for characters or plot devices? Is it based on percentage of characters in the episode? Is it based on portion of lines in the script? Is it reliable sources? Is any objective standard needed at all or is I know it when I see it adequate? I look forward to seeing this consensus and precedent applied to each and every CfD. Alansohn (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I know it when I see it" is unworkable. Our categorization system is not and should not be a tagging system where everyone gets to tag things the way they see it. The only way I can see this working is if there is some objective NPOV way to determine category membership. I came to cfd discussions several years back, appalled that most of the LGBT categories had been deleted, and I worked to get them undeleted by creating the LGBT notice board. I have since reversed my opinion on many of these categories over the years. I now think that many of them are overcategorizations. If an article discusses LGBT related issues, I can see that as reason to categorize the article in a category like this. That would be "I know when I see it discussed in the article". That could be workable, but if it is not discussed, we are asking for trouble. What would you think of categories like "Films with Christian symbolism", "Films with sinners", "TV episodes with family values", "Books with high moral standards", "Godless institutions", etc... Certainly, people can claim that they know Christian symbolism or Sin when they see it, but if the article doesn't discuss it (with citations) you are asking for trouble. We are creating an encyclopedia and not a survey of popular opinion. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 11:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Alansohn, that the similar Category:LGBT-related films has been in place for so long without incident is extremely informative as to how such a category can exist uncontroversially. I am continuing to attempt to assume good faith here but I'm beginning to wonder whether you're simply being contrary for the sake of contrariness. That you blithely assume that anyone who disagrees with your belief that a particular category should be retained does not in any possible way automatically translate into IHATEIT, any more than your arguing to keep every category automatically means that your opinion is merely WP:ILIKEIT. Your continued insistence that all of us who think that there are some categories that shouldn't exist "hate" those categories and have no other reason for arguing against them is ridiculously insulting. Otto4711 (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even when we agree you can't stop with the personal attacks. I too am I assuming good faith here, but one day researchers might discover any consistency whatsoever in your opinions based on Wikipedia policy. So far, it appears based purely on keeping what you like and deleting whatever you don't, but that's just how it appears to me. I oppose the existence of many categories on a policy basis, and I support this particular one. What astounds me is that this is a category that is completely and utterly subjective based on an I know it when I see it methodology, requires no sources whatsoever, has no connection at all between any of the articles in the category and no evidence for any of these programs that the LGBT content ("significant" or otherwise, however that is determined) is a defining characteristic of these episodes. I am crafting a Strong Support for this category, not only because I believe this category should exist, but because of the massive and overwhelming precedent it sets here. My only concern is that it appears that in supporting a category you really like for a change that you have gone a bit overboard, which might well allow others to challenge the precedent you and other editors are setting here. Alansohn (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alansohn has given an excellent rationale for deleting this category rather than for keeping it. For the reasons he give, I think this category and those like it, can be the subject of a very good list, but are defective as categories. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only do I think that this category should exist, I strongly support for the staggering number of precedents that it sets, all the more so because of the clear consensus here and the nature of the category and comments used to support its retention. 1) Categories can be completely subjective - There is no definition whatsoever of what "LGBT-Related" means, nor is there any way to determine if any episodes "substantially cover such issues". The argument provided to keep by User:Ctjf83 provides an excellent argument that "We put in inclusion criteria on the template page" and nothing more is needed as long as these inclusion criteria are specified. 2) I know it when I see it is a valid inclusion criteria - as there is no threshold set to determine what belongs in a category, editors are free to use their judgment to determine what belongs in a category. 3) Acceptance that WP:CLN encourages coexistence of lists AND categories - as noted by User:Otto4711, lists and categories "complement each other", after all, lists can have red links, and "Why should someone interested in this topic have to scan through hundreds of entries in search of bluelinks." 4) No need for articles to have any common uniting feature - again, Otto4711, said it best, that "the first guideline for category usage is that the category groups similar articles together". The oft-repeated argument that there must be some inherent connection between each of the articles is conclusively put to the grave. 5) Sources are not needed to support a category, but existence of sources confirms retention of a category - existence of general media coverage is all that is necessary to show that a category should be retained. But most importantly it establishes the "Otto Test", under which a category will be retained if it meets three criteria 1) is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the topic of the category? 2) is it obvious why any given article would be in the category? 3) does the category fit into the overall categorization system? I applaud all of those users who have finally stood up to the IHATEIT crowd and crafted a set of guidelines that will end most of the drama here at CfD. There are few categories that will not be able to pass these tests. My suggestion is that these guidelines should be recorded at WP:CAT so that we can short circuit so many of the disruptive and arbitrary pushes for deletion of categories that almost always contradict these guidelines. Alansohn (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While obviously I support this category, I strongly object to Alansohn's attempts to somehow make this about me and strongly reject what he says in his attempts to link his opinion to me in any way. Otto4711 (talk) 03:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than giving the creator of the "Otto Test" credit where credit is due, this has nothing to do with you. This is all about driving a truck through the gates that have been blocked for so long with a precedent that ends most of the arbitrary rationalizations for deleting categories. I couldn't be any happier that we have found so many points of agreement here. Alansohn (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.