Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 28

< August 27	August 29 >

August 28

Categories:New Zealanders of Fooian descent

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: rename all as nominated, noting that the arguments for deleting some "Fooians of Boo descent" categories are quite convincing, in my opinion. In addition to the arguments given in the discussion, there is the question of whether these are significant intersections. For instance, while the intersection Bulgarians of Turkish descent is a subject of academic and social/political interest, the intersection Mongolians of Andorran descent is not. Yet, under the current categorisation scheme, we would have categories for both, assuming that at least one article existed to populate each one.
That said, these categories have been routinely kept (or, more precisely, renamed) at CFD. Moreover, it is virtually guaranteed that any attempt to delete one grouping of nationality/descent categories in the absence of either a general consensus to do so or special circumstances (such as with Mongolians of Andorran descent) would be met with "massive resistance" (and likely overturned at deletion review). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming/merging

Nominator's rationale: as per naming convention Mayumashu (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all. Accepted and best wording for these categories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Forgive me if I am being dense, but what do you mean by "of fooian descent"? How far back are you tracing lineage? Hiding T 09:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As far back as can be traced, but, of course, with sources supporting any claims. Mayumashu (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What sort of sources? And why? I'm just wondering if we're going to start English people of Scottish descent, or Irish people of British descent, although of course we could already have them. Hiding T 18:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - they do in fact already exist, but are un(der)developed - Category:Irish people of British descent and Category:Scots of English descent. Like with any source, something published is best, but unsourced claims that are not controversial may or may not get tagged as being unsourced (and therefore inappropriate), being tagged meaning that they potentially, eventually removed. Controversial claims are rather quickly found and dealt with. Why? Cuz published material has been, presumably, checked over - a publisher's reputation is at stake for not getting things wrong. For official description on this policy see WP:Sources Mayumashu (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Um, thanks for the link to our sourcing policy, but that isn't entirely what I meant. I was looking for an inkling into how you weigh the sources, an important part of our policies. But I think I'm going to go for Delete as over categorisation. Hiding T 20:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I see, why have these cats and not why have sources (I thought the question was odd). Yeah, definitely sources to support ethnicity claims tend very much to be rather poor. Wikipedia pages (both articles and cat pages) on matters of ethnicity here certainly exist for their popularity amongst some (to the chagrin of others) and not for high scholarly value Mayumashu (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment – I'm pretty sure we decided upon New Zealand people in preference to New Zealander (as in the parent Category:New Zealand people). I support the 'of Fooian descent' part. Occuli (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, we do - but that's not really relevant to these categories. Note that, for example,Category:Norwegians of Black African descent (discussed above) is a subcategory of Category:Norwegian people. That is the standards way of doing things, from what I can see. As such, it would be understandable for Category:New Zealanders of Fooian descent to be a subcategory of Category:New Zealand people. Grutness...wha? 06:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that as long as the supra cat page is explicit, the subcats should/can be 'abbreviated', within reason. Mayumashu (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Categorising by ethnicity or "national descent" seems like an utterly bad idea (no matter how long it's been going on). See also comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 29. This tree should be felled. And if we have to do it a few at a time, then we can and should. (As opposed to an WP:ALLORNOTHING argument.) - jc37 23:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom and many prior discussions of this sort. As for just deleting them all, that also means deleting Category:Irish-Americans and everything like it, a proposition that will meet with massive resistance. PS: I have to observe, on the side, that the American categories are inconsistently named - some are in the "of Foo descent" form, others like Irish-Americans, but without the hyphen, etc. Whoever cares most about categories like this should take a look at a cleanup operation on those, as well. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Much clearer meaning than the current names. Dimadick (talk) 09:00, 2 September 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:Argentinian prisoners of war

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: rename. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Argentinian prisoners of war to Category:Argentine prisoners of war

Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency. Dictionaries list "Argentine", "Argentinian", and "Argentino" as acceptable forms for someone from Argentina, but the common standard used in Category:Argentine people and all its subcategories seems to be "Argentine". Immediate parent categories are Category:Argentine prisoners and detainees and Category:Argentine military personnel. See similar CfD here. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, didnt realise Argentine was used on Wiki Hugo999 (talk) 01:34, 30 August 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:Bootleg albums

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: rename. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Bootleg recordings per MrFizyx' comment at the bottom (#Category:The Beatles bootlegs). — CharlotteWebb 20:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. I had worries that this would mean each individual track getting categorised but I realised we have other guidance that would prevent that. Hiding T 09:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be proper to categorize individual recordings i.e. songs which have only circulated as bootlegs and never as part of an official release. — CharlotteWebb 13:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No argument from me there, I'm not getting into that issue. That wasn't what I meant anyway, but again I learn that I am forever misunderstood and sometimes it is better to keep my mouth shut. Hiding T 09:38, 1 September 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:Energy emergency

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. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Don't understand what this category is about, nor why some of the entries are on it (no context in the articles). Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...Specially, if you delete sections in articles about energy emergency, as happened in Commodity Futures Trading Commission: "On June 26, 2008 the House passed the Energy Markets Emergency Act, H.R. 6377. The bill would take crucial steps to curb excessive speculation in the energy futures markets by directing the CFTC to :

Use all its authority, including its emergency powers, immediately to curb the role of excessive speculation in any contract market trading energy futures or swaps, and
Use its most potent emergency tools -- including the immediate powers to set new position limits (size of the stake that each speculative investor can hold in a given market), increase margin requirements (the money needed to trade), and impose other corrective actions as necessary -- to eliminate excessive speculation, price distortion, sudden or unreasonable fluctuations, or unwarranted changes in the price of energy commodities or other unlawful activity causing major market disturbances that prevent the market from accurately reflecting the forces of supply and demand for energy commodities". --Nukeless 06:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete, seems like an article masquerading as a category, in that it seems to be trying to tell a story about what's related to a particular "energy emergency"; it's also horribly parochial, in that it is categorizing such things as Indian and Iranian energy producers by, apparently, American economic and legislative priorities. Energy Markets Emergency Act of 2008, the stalled legislation noted by Nukeless above, already has its own article. Postdlf (talk) 18:12, 29 August 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:Television programs that use Wikipedia

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. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Contains just one page. Not encyclopedic. Horribly self-referential. --kingboyk (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vague category. Is this for TV shows that reference Wikipedia, TV shows that show characters using Wikipedia, TV shows whose writers use Wikipedia for research? Whatever its purpose, it's unnecessary. Otto4711 (talk) 21:48, 28 August 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:Italian comic book titles

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: rename. –'Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Italian comic book titles to Category:Italian comics titles

Nominator's rationale: To match the standard of Category:Comics titles by country.

Rename as nom. Hiding T 09:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - per nom. These two appear to be the only ones out of over 30 categories. - jc37 10:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - per nom, seems logical. MURGH ^disc. 10:04, 28 August 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:Spanish comic book titles

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: rename. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Spanish comic book titles to Category:Spanish comics titles

Nominator's rationale: To match the standard of Category:Comics titles by country.

Rename as nom. Hiding T 09:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Hiding T 09:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - per nom. These two appear to be the only ones out of over 30 categories. - jc37 10:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - per nom as well, seems logical. MURGH ^disc. 10:04, 28 August 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:Conversion therapy

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: no consensus. Might I suggest taking this to the category talk page? I don't know if any further progress would be made, but it seems a shame not to try. Kbdank71 16:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: There is no need for a conversion therapy category - other categories such as ex-gay people and ex-gay organizations cover the same territory. It has been inappropriately created by admin Will Beback because of a dispute he is engaged in with me over the Aesthetic Realism article (note that Aesthetic Realism is the only article in that category at the moment). Skoojal (talk) 07:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or fix The nominator has defined "Ex-gay" apparently as being limited to a list of groups, excluding other groups that have sought conversion of homosexuality through therapy. The nominator excludes Aesthetic Realism, perhaps because it is secular, and apparently doesn't think it should be in another category either. I've asked him to propose an alternate category but he hasn't done so. I'm open to any solution of this that leaves the article in a relevant category. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My main point isn't that ex-gay groups are by definition Christian - it's that they are by definition primarily concerned with homosexuality, which does not appear to be the case with Aesthetic Realism (which, incidentally, has never defined itself as an ex-gay organization or as part of the ex-gay movement as far as I know - and neither do organizations that do see themselves that way regard Aesthetic Realism as part of their movement). Will Beback created this category simply because of a dispute involving one article - I consider that inappropriate. There are already other categories (ex-gay movement, ex-gay organization, ex-gay people) that cover this territory; creating yet another category confuses things and increases the chances that categories will be misused. Beback's comment that, "I'm open to any solution of this that leaves the article in a relevant category" suggests to me that he is not interested in defending the category for its own sake, or thinks it is essential - and if it isn't essential, it should be deleted. Skoojal (talk) 08:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One point of correction: the Aesthetic Realism movement did define itself mainly as a method of changing from homosexuality for roughly two decades. Please see the clippings I posted on the talk page. I agree with Joshuajohanson that there are topics related to conversion of orientation that aren't covered by "ex-gay", at least as defined by Skoojal. Skoojal isn't proposing any better category to fit this niche, so "conversion therapy" is the best we've got. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The clippings you provide proved nothing of the kind. The Aesthetic Realism movement itself has contradicted this view - its denial of this claim is in the article itself. My view is still that there is no need for this category - the fact that it was created because of a dispute on an article about one rather marginal subject strongly suggests as much. Skoojal (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the clippings specifcally says that conversion from homosexuality is the "main emphasis" of the group. There might be no need for this category if you hadn't rejected the inlcuison of articles in the "ex-gay" category. I just checked the websites of a few of the organizations in that category and found no mention of "ex-gay", so I don't understand what basis you are using for deciding which article may go into which categories. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The clipping says that this "appears" to be the main focus of the group - the "appears" part shows that whoever wrote that didn't really know. In any case, the fact that something appears in a newspaper does not mean that it is true. Skoojal (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a better source then please provide it. Also, it's bad form to depopulate a category while it's under CFD. Please stop removing article from the category until the CfD is complete. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshuajohanson has been misusing this category - which to me strengthens the case for abolishing it. Without discussion, he inappropriately added it to several articles, including that on Sigmund Freud, and my removal of it was correct. I have removed one article - Warren Throckmorton - from the category because that was a BLP violation, in my judgment. If you obstruct me from removing the category, this dispute will unfortunately make its way to the Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents. Skoojal (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You removed Conversion therapy from category:Conversion therapy, for example.[1] I can't think of any legitimate reason for doing so. Please explain. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did that as part of an edit that undid Joshuajohanson's inappropriate removal of the psychotherapy category from that article. It could be considered somewhat pointless to add the conversion therapy category to the article itself, but I don't feel so strongly about it, and don't plan to remove the category again (though I still think the category itself should be abolished). Skoojal (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main articles are always in cluded in the categories named for them. That's why Ex-gay is in category:Ex-gay movement. Please be more careful in your editing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the parent cats of this one are Category:Psychotherapy, Category:Sexual orientation and medicine, category:Ex-gay movement and category:LGBT. So it's unnecessary for an article that's already in this category to be in any one of those categories. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then there are numerous other articles that need to have the same kind of edits made to them - including that on NARTH, for instance. Skoojal (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One does not have to be part of the ex-gay movement to seek conversion therapy. Likewise, you do not need to undergo conversion therapy to be part of the ex-gay movement. I like the conversion therapy category because it provides a place where psychologist can go who contributed to the underlining theories (such as Freud and Moberly) but never were specifically involved in the ex-gay movement. It is highly related to the ex-gay movement, so I put it in as a subcategory of the ex-gay movement. Also, I think it is a better fit for the Sexual orientation and medicine category than the ex-gay movement is. Also, I don't think NARTH is as much of an ex-gay organization as it is a conversion therapy organization. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that Moberly was never involved in the ex-gay movement comes as a surprise to me. If you are planning to place Freud in the conversion therapy category, then I'll tell you right now that I am absolutely opposed to that. It's a perfect example of the kind of mischievous misuse that could be made of this category, and strengthens the case for abolishing it. Skoojal (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Egads. It looks to me like Category:Conversion therapy is there to group things specifically related to Conversion Therapy, and not all groups and individuals who set out to convert homosexuals. I accept that is a fine distinction, but would a sensible compromise be a Category:Conversion techniques? Or renaming this one, maybe Category:Conversion theories? I confess I'm an outsider to all of this and if I'm planting my size tens in it forgive me. I'm just trying to offer a third party opinion you might find useful. Hiding T 09:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Will Beback, instead of creating a category for Conversion Therapy, had instead created a category for Conversion Therapists, I wouldn't have had a problem with it. Such a category would have been a useful addition, because it's perfectly clear and self-explanatory which articles it applies to. 'Conversion Therapy' is a vague category, and it's simply not clear which articles it should or shouldn't be attached to. It has already been put to mischievous misuse by Joshuajohanson (and by Will Beback as well - it appears he has some kind of special grudge against Aesthetic Realism). Skoojal (talk) 00:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- None of this would be necessary if Skoojal would explain his criteris for excludsing groups from the Category:Ex-gay organizations. Since he has decided unilaterally that some groups which did conversion therapy may not be included ther it's necessary to have another category. I've asked Skoojal again and again to propose an alternative that he'd find acceptable. I don't object to renaming the category to "Conversion therapies" or "Conversion therapists" if that will be acceptable to him as well. I also remind Skooal that we assume good faith around here. Ascribing motives to editors is poor form. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are willing to change Conversion Therapy to Conversion Therapists, then that at least is progess. Conversion Therapists can apply to individuals. It can't, as I hope is perfectly clear, apply to therapy techniques, such as aversion therapy, or to Aesthetic Realism. Skoojal (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding excluding Aesthetic Realism from ex-gay organizatons, I did that because in my view it does not meet the description on the category page: "This is a list of organizations whose goals align with the Ex-gay movement." Skoojal (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A) What category would you suggest for Aesthetic Realism? "Conversion organizations"? B) what are the goals of the ex-gay movement? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to A) I do not suggest any gay-related category for Aesthetic Realism. No existing category applies, and none should be created for this purpose. It's an organization about poetry, not homosexuality. In response to B) this is not the right question to ask. The right question would be, what is an ex-gay organization? Aesthetic Realism isn't one, because it's not mainly concerned with homosexuality (and by the way, if this discussion seems to be getting off topic, who is to blame?)Skoojal (talk) 04:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding A), you are simply incorrect. The organization, improbable though it may sound, sought to change men from homosexuality through the study of a particular poem. It was so proud of its successes in this matter that its members demonstrated in front of major newspapers demanding that they print articles covering their conversions. It published books on the topic. However in 1990, after the death of the founder, they announced that they were no longer proposing their therapy as a method of conversion. But for two decades, during their heyday, it was their main claim to notability. Regarding B) you removed the AR article from the Category:Ex-gay organizations because it did not meet the category's criteria: "organizations whose goals align with the Ex-gay movement." I'm aware of only one goal of that movement, converting homosexuals into heterosexuals. That was the goal of the AR. Please explain what other goals the Ex-gay movement has. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These claims about Aesthetic Realism seem more and more to be off topic. This is a discussion about the Conversion therapy category, not Aesthetic Realism. Your claims are in any case without evidence. It is certainly inappropriate to enter into a discussion of the ex-gay movement here, which is again off topic. Skoojal (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have no idea what this category is supposed to be categorizing, and it seems that no one else does, either. as it stands, it has random list of people who've had some minor connection with 'conversion therapy' (only one or two of them, as far as I can see, are actively involved pro or con with conversion therapy as their primary focus), a philosophical perspective and a psychotherapeutic technique (Aesthetic Realism and Aversion Therapy) for which the conversion of gays is an incidental use, and one link (aside from the conversion therapy page itself) which actually seems to be relevant. plus, I am a bit put off by Will's suggestion that the the main reason he made the category was because Skoojal kept removing things from Category:Ex-gay organizations. that's an unfortunate reason to recategorize; it feels like you're searching for a category to keep these (possibly unrelated) things together, rather than trying to group things that actually go together. I mean, I'm willing to listen if someone can explain to me precisely what is being categorized here (which would go a long way to resolving inclusion/exclusion problems as well...) --Ludwigs2 02:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of clarification, I have not been removing things from the ex-gay organizations category nearly as much as I have been removing them from the ex-gay movement category - many things in that category were included inappropriately. Aesthetic Realism is the only group I removed from ex-gay organizations. Skoojal (talk) 03:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Ex-gay is, indeed, a specific christian group with their own theories. Their methods include a variety of "conversion therapies", but the group is not all inclusive of other groups that use conversion therapies. I can't speak to the specific Aesthetic Realism, but there does appear to be a need for a wider category that describes people and theories that may not fit in the Ex-gay movement. I'd be leery of including Freud - his methods spawned some conversion therapies, but I don't know if he would label himself as part of that group. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There may well be a need for a wider category than ex-gay movement or organizations - but Conversion therapy seems to be too broad a category, and may be prone to misuse. It's intolerable that there should be no clear rules about what goes in the category and what does not. If it were changed to Conversion therapists, that would make matters clear. Skoojal (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument that it might be misused is a bit specious, I think. Category:Gay musicians is far more likely to be "misused" or used as a joke than this one is. As for it being too broad, we can sub-categorize as needed - add "Conversion therapists" if there seem to be too many in the parent cat. But if there's a need for a broader category than "Ex-gay", this seems to be a good one. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind explaining exactly what articles you think need this category, and why existing categories aren't enough?Skoojal (talk) 04:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um. At the risk of being facetious, anything to do with Conversion therapy? You know, there are other people and organizations trying to change homosexuals into heterosexuals that aren't involved in the Ex-gay movement. NARTH comes to mind. Love In Action may or may not be affiliated with the Ex-gay movement. People Can Change seems to be another one related to conversion therapy, but not the ex-gay movement. Therapies and/or therapists involved in conversion therapy, whether or not they're affiliated with the ex-gay movement would all belong to this cat. You yourself were removing articles from Category:Ex-gay movement - would not some of them belong? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having a category that includes "anything to do with Conversion therapy" is a disaster waiting to happen. It would mean that any subject related to Conversion therapy, in any way or to any extent (perhaps even only a minor extent) could be placed into a category that would lead to it being identified completely with Conversion therapy. It would lead, I suspect, to a lot of people and groups that are only tenuously connected with Conversion therapy being presented as though they were important and central aspects of it. If a narrower and more specific category were used instead (I've suggested Conversion Therapists), that wouldn't be a problem. Skoojal (talk) 06:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skoojal, the description of how categories work explicitly states "Categories are for defining characteristics". That means that it is not appropriate to put "any subject related to Conversion therapy" into the cat. We already have tons of cats where someone has to remove inappropriate items, just as we have tons of articles where someone has to remove inappropriate content. That's not a reason for deleting the article, nor is it a reason for deleting the cat. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 13:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote above that the category should contain 'anything to do with Conversion therapy.' I don't know how you can say that, then say that 'it is not appropriate to put "any subject related to Conversion therapy" into the cat.' Please clarify. I'll say again that it's extremely unfortunate to have a category as broad and vague as this, and for there to be no clear rules about what does and doesn't go into it. Skoojal (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me restate. The category is for articles related to Conversion therapy, as one might surmise from the category title. It is not appropriate, per WP:CAT, to put just any article in the category, but rather articles where conversion therapy is a defining characteristic. There are tons of categories that are broad. It is my understanding that a broader category than "Category:Ex-gay movement" is needed, and that this is what has been created. If you have a better suggestion that is broader than "Ex-gay movement", I might support it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that there is a need for a category broader than Ex-gay movement, then what purpose would continuing to have the ex-gay movement category serve? If there is to be a category for everything of which conversion therapy is a defining characteristic, and you think this would include everything ex-gay, then I can't see that the ex-gay movement category would still be needed - the two narrower categories of ex-gay people and ex-gay organizations would be all that was required. The fact that the ex-gay movement category still exists simply shows that the implications of creating the Conversion therapy category have not been thought through properly. There is now a jumble of four relevant categories - ex-gay movement, ex-gay people, ex-gay organizations, and conversion therapy. It makes little sense. In actual fact, 'Conversion therapy' isn't 'broader' than ex-gay movement at all. It's just different. It's not true that everything ex-gay is by definition Conversion therapy, so this new category doesn't give the 'broadness' required. Skoojal (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Skoojal, you seem (and this is just my opinion and is not meant to be judgemental) you seem to have extremely strong feelings about this category. I don't know where they are coming from or why, but it's making this discussion difficult.

As you know, categories are not necessarily tree structures. If Category:Ex-gay movement doesn't fit fully within Category:Conversion therapy, then so be it. However, the fact remains that there are articles that have to do with people, organizations, and practices that aim to change homosexuals and that are not part of the "Ex-gay" movement or organizations. So a category is needed, IMO. You asked for my opinion, there it is. I'm done with this discussion. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are 'articles that have to do with people, organizations, and practices that aim to change homosexuals and that are not part of the "Ex-gay" movement or organizations.' That's not a reason for a Conversion therapy category. It would be a reason for creating perhaps two different categories, Conversion therapists and Conversion therapy organizations (which would be comparable to the Ex-gay people and Ex-gay organizations categories that already exist). Such categories would be useful because they are specific, and wouldn't result in endless disputes about what does and doesn't fit into them - the sort of disputes that Will Beback's creation of the Conversion therapy category has already helped to start. Skoojal (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random break

Delete. and look at finding consensus on longer-term and less volatile solutions. Conversion therapy is a loaded and contentious field promoted by those who assert that being gay/lesbian/bi is a choice and individuals can "choose" (and pray) their way out of "that lifestyle", its main financial supporters have been right-wing Christian groups, and I don't tend to throw that phrase around lightly. The main article is a POV minefield that Skoojal seems to be addressing and this category which is, IMHO, inherently POV, would seem to inflame trench warfare which has been on the rise over the last several months with several new articles cropping up which need clean-up and source checking. I will AGF Joshuajohanson is trying to present differing viewpoints accurately but I'm concerned about OR, POV and OWN issues on homosexual orientation and a few other newly minted articles that have popped up. I have little to no experience with Will Beback, as far as I can recall, but if this category was created in the middle of a content dispute that doesn't seem to bode well for the project. As a suggestion to Will Beback, maybe ~~a "conversion therapy" (or related term)~~ ""Changing sexuality and sexual behavior" template would connect these dots better? As for the categories - this one and ex-gay et al - I would ask those experienced in categorization be brought in to recommend what would be neutral and comprehensive. Banjeboi 06:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benji, how is this category POV? Any more or less than "Category:Homophobia"? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 13:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homophobia is, more or less, a well-understood and accepted term. There isn't a cultural war positioning "homophobes" as a way to influence voters and national politics. Whereas "conversion therapy" is almost exclusively used to further cast LGBT people as needing fixing or curing and some would say is a form of psychiatric abuse - especially when used against minors for a variety of reasons. "Changing sexuality and sexual behavior" would be more neutral IMHO.

Comment. I think we should first figure out what conversion therapy means. There is a discussion going on the conversion therapy talk page about whether it includes all methods to eliminate or reduce same-sex attractions or behaviors, or whether it is just therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation. If it is the later, the category is much more limited in scope. Before we can decide whether it is a category or not, we need to figure out what it means. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The truth of the matter is that there doesn't appear to be a single good definition of 'conversion therapy.' The sources the Conversion therapy article uses give numerous different possible definitions, and it's probably not going to be possible to sort it all out. Thus, having a Conversion therapy category is inherently problematic. 'Conversion therapists' would be a better category that would avoid some of these problems; the narrower the category, the less doubt about what it should apply to. Skoojal (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to nominate the "Ex-gay" categories for deletion as well, since they seem equally muddled. Benjiboi's suggestion of a template to include these articles may be a better solution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're going to have to find a category to hold some articles that are currently in Category:Ex-gay organizations, because they don't appear to fit the criteria of that category as interpreted by Skoojal. Of the 16 articles now in that category, most will have ot be removed. Some because they do not promote Christianity (Atzat Nefesh, Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality, StraightWay Foundation) and others because there is no evidence that they promote "a specific right-wing political agenda" (Courage International, People Can Change). What category can we create to handle these organizations, including Aesthetic Realism that have conducted some form of conversion therapy but which don't qualify as ex-gay organizations? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to nominate the ex-gay movement category for deletion - because it is unnecessary, not properly defined, and has been widely misused. Obviously, I'm not going to nominate it for deletion right away - this discussion has to be finished first. There's no reason why the ex-gay people or ex-gay organizations categories should be deleted. The exact definition of 'ex-gay organization' can be disputed; I have no intention of removing any of the organizations you mention from it. There is absolutely no need to create a special category just so that Aesthetic Realism can be fitted into it. Skoojal (talk) 06:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you delted that category from AR, but you wouldn't delete it from that list of groups. They appear to have the smae probblem fitting in the category that you ascribe to AR. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what definition of ex-gay organization you're going to use. Up to a point, it's arguable. However, to count as an ex-gay organization a group has to at least be mainly concerned with converting homosexuals to heterosexuality, which is not true of Aesthetic Realism. Skoojal (talk) 02:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it really matter what definition you're going to use, since you are the editor who has been enforcing your (unsourced) perception of the category:Ex-gay organizations criteria. According to your view of that criteria, at least a half dozen articles in that category do not qualify. So those articles, along with Aesthetic Realism, need an appropriate category. If not "Ex-gay organizations" then what? What is the appropriate cateogry for organizations that fooer therapy for changing from homosexuuality that don't (in your word) "promote Christianity and a specific right-wing political agenda"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's unreasonable to accuse me of 'enforcing' anything; I don't own Wikipedia. I explained already that I think it can be contested what counts as an ex-gay organization, but only up to a point; Aesthetic Realism doesn't count as one, and it doesn't seem like a good idea to create a new category simply because you think it would fit that one article. Skoojal (talk) 03:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who went around deleting articles from the category because they didn't meet your defnition of the criteria. I've listed above a half-dozen other articles that don't meet the criteria either, and which will also need an appropriate category. I'm not stuck on "Conversion therapy", but we need something to categorize organizations that provide therapy for changing homosexuals that aren't part of the ex-gay movement. Perhaps "Providers of change therapy". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then change the category's name to Conversion therapy organizations. That would have been a better choice from the start. Skoojal (talk) 06:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I worry that having Category:Conversion therapy organizations and Category:Conversion therapists leaves out other articles. Like Conversion therapy, or Aesthetic Realism - those are neither organizations nor therapists. Personally I'd prefer something broader, that might well encompass "therapists" and "organizations" (if those subcats are needed). -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a good thing if Aesthetic Realism was left out. It doesn't belong in any category of this kind. And the broadness of the 'Conversion therapy' category means endless disputes about what goes into it and what doesn't. Skoojal (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine - my point still stands. You may believe that the current category is too ill-defined and/or too broad, but my concern is that every "substitute" category mentioned is too narrow. The article Conversion therapy, which is the definer for the current category, would be left out of the new categories mentioned. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. SatyrTN seems to have the best handle and way forwards, so I'm keeping per reasons user stated above. Hiding T 20:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind responding to the questions I put to SatyrTN? Skoojal (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I can flip flop all you want, it's not going to make too much difference. You're better of resolving the underlying points of contention and then relisting this if needed rather than trying to resolve the issue through deletion. There obviously needs to be a category. Until consensus thinks of a better one, keep this one. Rather than badgering me to answer questions, why not look to reconcile the differences. If that means creating another category and moving some of the articles out of this one, fair play. But I tend to agree with SatyrTN; why should this category be about what is described in the article at Conversion therapy rather than about people who try to convert homosexuals using some form of therapy? Hiding T 23:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think this category needs to exist? Saying that it's 'obvious' that it must exist doesn't explain this. Wikipedia seemed to manage fine without this category. It was created as part of a dispute over one article about a fringe group. I don't understand the point of the last sentence in your post. Skoojal (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you can spend all day arguing with me but what are you actually doing? You can read the debate above and see stated reasons why some semblance of a category like this needs to exist. Even you yourself concede that point. My argument is, you don't get to delete this one until you all agree on what you're going to call it. I hope that now ends this branch of the conversation. Hiding T 08:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Skoojal on this, the main article itself had some misleading info in the lede which first needs to be sorted out - that's likely to to take more than just a few days. Then the category would need to be defined as to which definition of conversion therapy is going to be used. "Changing sexuality, sexual behavior and sexual desires" is quite a mouthful but would be more inclusive and less POV. Banjeboi 06:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But until you all sort that out, you shouldn't go around deleting this category. Find the solution first, then put it into action. Sure you can get to where you are going without a map, but generally only when it is a well trodden path. Hiding T 08:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth noting this category was created[2] several days ago because of this very dispute. We shouldn't keep it just because it's disputed - we should roll the clock back and get it right instead. All involved, generally, can reason and sort this out and come up with the best way to help our readers. I would suggest a NPOV cat and possibly a template to highlight either the cat's prime articles/concepts or just Conversion therapy itself if that is a main interest. Banjeboi 08:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled. You seem to suggest the solution won't be agreed upon in this debate. Why not? All it would take is for everyone to stop arguing the side issues and debate the eminently acceptable solution you just proposed. What is wrong with a NPOV cat and what would you call it? Hiding T 09:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that it will manifest that quickly but something that encapsulates "Changing sexuality, sexual behavior, desire, and identity" would seem to be on the right path. Banjeboi 10:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's slow down. What is it we are looking to categorise? People who, for the sake of argument, "believe" someone's sexuality is open to persuasion through techniques commonly referred to as conversion? So would a "Conversion in homosexuality" or "Conversion and sexuality" or "Conversion theories in homosexuality" or "Conversionists in homosexuality" work? Maybe the latter would be the bestter bet? However, all this entails that Conversion therapy is adequately sourced, avoids OR and maintains NPOV and Category:Conversion therapy is kept for those for whom one can source an explicit relationship to Conversion therapy. There's a notional Category:Conversion thinking in sexuality to sit at the top of these, if there's adequate sources to create an article on Conversion thinking in sexuality or something similar. I remember Queer as Folk having characters claim conversion of straight people was possible, so maybe there is sourcing that sexuality is open to conversion. But I openly admit I'm out of my area of expertise here. For me, creating Category:Conversion theories in homosexuality as a parent category to this one and resorting articles from Category:Conversion therapy to there is the way forwards, keeping Category:Conversion therapy for those related to Conversion therapy. Hiding T 11:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down? I'm in no rush but this process only lasts a few days. This category was created, coincidentally, a few days ago, as part of a content dispute and I agree that it's causing more problems that it solves. the definitions aren't agreed upon and the title of the cat is POV-problematic. I think a survey of articles proposed for a category would help, what makes sense from there. And conversion therapy is subjected to gender and sexual minorities so "homosexual" isn't helpful. We should clear this one out as being inherently contentious and start with logical parent categorizing. Banjeboi 02:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Contrary to what was stated in the nomination, 'ex-gay' does not cover the same ground. As is made clear by the respective articles, ex-gay is explicitly a religious movement, while conversion therapy is not. Aside from that, I don't see any unusual issues with this category. While no category is absolutely essential to have, this one is as useful as any other in that it collects articles on a topic for the benefit of the reader. That topic is sufficiently well-defined; we have a long, well sourced article on it. There may be some dispute over whether individual articles are sufficiently connected to the subject to warrant inclusion; this is inescapably tue of all categories. I do think the potential for a parent category holding both Category:Ex-gay and Category:Conversion therapy has merit, as there is a unifying theme of changing sexual orientation and/or sexual behvaiour; browsing articles on that theme would likely be of use to the reader. Just what to call that category is a debate for another place.--Trystan (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-gay may or may not cover the same ground, depending on how you define it. Most of these definitions seem to be arbitrary to some degree - as is clear from the Conversion therapy article, which doesn't even have a satisfactory definition of 'Conversion therapy' despite its numerous sources. Skoojal (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The definitions of conversion therapy provided by both APAs are clear, precise, and come from appropriate authorities; on what grounds would we discard them as 'unsatisfactory'? Is this category really suffering from a unique and unremediable crisis of vagueness? It seems like a much clearer, narrower scope than something like Category:Arts or Category:Counterculture.

By pruning everything from a narrowly construed Category:Ex-gay movement and then deleting this category, we would make it very difficult to access articles which substantially deal with this topic - and that's whole point of categorization.--Trystan (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one says there isn't a good category possible - this just isn't it. We all agree that serving the reader is important - ergo we should be accurate and clear. It's misleading to use faulty definitions and then add articles that may or may not fit a moving target. Banjeboi 02:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To reply to Trystan: the two definitions of Conversion therapy in that article contradict each other. They cannot both be correct, and they are arguably both wrong. None of the articles that those definitions are drawn from are primarily concerned with defining Conversion therapy, so they can only be used to define it with caution, despite the fact that they are from official sources. I don't think one can have much confidence in the Conversion therapy category if its main article cannot properly define the subject. Benjiboi may be right that there would be better ways to organize this information. Skoojal (talk) 03:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object to replacing this category with another one. If there is any sort of consensus emerging from this discussion, it would seem to be a general agreement that there should be some sort of category in this area, just with a better name and clearer scope. Settling on one now may be the best way forward. I'll bow out here, however, as I've contributed my piece.--Trystan (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There is a concept here that needs to be captured, and ex-gay doesn't do it. I don't think we need to list sexuality, sexual behavior, desire, and identity since human sexuality includes all ways in which people experience and express themselves as sexual beings, including Sexuality (orientation). How about just Changing sexuality? Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a category is needed, but please not 'Conversion therapy.' It's too broad, and there don't seem to be any clear rules about what goes in it and what doesn't. Conversion therapists or Conversion therapy organizations would be better. Skoojal (talk) 06:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rename. Currently, this category has no focus and the title does not help. One entry that was in there was for a person that believed in conversion therapy. Clearly for that person, this is not a defining characteristic. If people are included, that probably should be in a sub category that clearly defines some criteria for inclusion. I'm not opposed to the category just with the confusion over how it is being used. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm still unsure there is an easy category answer here. My suggestion is to first bundle together the articles you think should belong together and see if a neutral template could help. Secondly I recommend a neutral discussion/ask for assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology might help. For me there are a lot of loaded words here, for instance, "therapy" implies diagnosis of a disease which alone could cause some articles to not fit. Many of the articles suggested might be correctly categorized in several categories rather than trying to find one good fit there may be several. Category:Sexual orientation is the obvious parent but beyond that I'm unsure what's the next best place to go. Banjeboi 00:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename. I'm not going to be a deal breaker. Hiding T 11:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article that this category depends upon has to be cleaned up and that's going to take a bit of work, much of it already taking place. This will help sort out some of the issue and that, in turn, will hopefully inform category options. Whatever we do it should be a longer-term solution as we are here to serve our readers so it should provide clarity and organization. Banjeboi 21:37, 3 September 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:Clothing manufacturers of South Korea

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: rename to Category:Clothing and textile companies of South Korea. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Clothing manufacturers of South Korea to Category:Clothing companies of South Korea

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match all other siblings. Otto4711 (talk) 04:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rename to Category:Clothing and textile companies of South Korea to actually match most every sibling here: Category:Clothing and textile companies by country Hmains (talk) 22:18, 30 August 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:Transgender anime and manga

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: rename to Category:Transgender and transsexual-related anime and manga. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Transgender and transsexual anime and manga. While a mouthful, most of the categories in the LGBT pantheon are "Transgender and transsexual", including Category:Transgender and transsexual people, actors, writers, etc. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Transgender and transsexual-related anime and manga - although even more of a mouthful, it matches other similar categories like Category:LGBT-related films and Category:LGBT-related television programs. These anime and manga deal with transpeople; the anime and manga are not themselves trans. Otto4711 (talk) 04:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh why not just up-merge as Category:LGBT-related anime and manga then? — CharlotteWebb 19:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT anime and manga exists as a container category (and should be renamed since inanimate objects don't have sexual orientations). Otto4711 (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support Category:Transgender and transsexual-related anime and manga. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Category:Transgender and transsexual-related anime and manga. Hiding T 20:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per the suggestion of Otto4711. Clearer meaning. Dimadick (talk) 09:03, 2 September 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:Lee family

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: rename. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lee family to Category:Lee family of Virginia

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There are other notable families named Lee. The name change disambiguates. This was to have been included in yesterday's mass nom but I overlooked it and wasn't sure if I could add it to that nom. Otto4711 (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this needs disambiguating, the corresponding article Lee family does too. I will support any solution where the article and category have the same title. — CharlotteWebb 20:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus is to rename this and the other categories I'll go through the lead articles and move them. Otto4711 (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rename This would be helpful to see, on sight, what Lee family is being discussed. There are many of them. Hmains (talk) 22:27, 30 August 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.

Categories:Malaysians of Fooian descent

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: rename all. For a more detailed rationale, see here. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

(note:Ethnic groups native to Malaysia have not been nominated for rename)

Nominator's rationale: as per now conventional naming pattern Mayumashu (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support all renames according to recent precedent except Category:Malaysians of Hainanese descent which should be Category:Malaysians of Hainanese Chinese descent and similarly the Hokkien or Fujian item, concerning which I am uncertain what is the best form. However are you sure that the Thai category is [not?] indeed an expatriate rather than a native ethnic category? Peterkingiron (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the people listed all look to me to be 'Malaysian' (directly involved in leadership of the country [a king and a P.M.] or citizens/subjects of Malaysia) Mayumashu (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Categorising by ethnicity or "national descent" seems like an utterly bad idea (no matter how long it's been going on). See also comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 29. This tree should be felled. And if we have to do it a few at a time, then we can and should. (As opposed to an WP:ALLORNOTHING argument.) - jc37 23:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, and per NZ thread above. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Clearer meaning. With the possible exception of the Hainanese category which should make clear the Hainanese (ethnic group) are Chinese. Dimadick (talk) 09:06, 2 September 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:The Beatles bootlegs

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: rename. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Beatles bootlegs to Category:The Beatles bootleg recordings

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main articles The Beatles bootleg recordings and bootleg recording. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming per nom. We may also want to consider renaming the parent category Category:Bootleg albums to Category:Bootleg recordings to agree with the subcategories and cover a broader scope. -MrFizyx (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, see above #Category:Bootleg albums. — CharlotteWebb 20:12, 28 August 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.